The Language of Social Studies Education: An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts 9004546944, 9789004546943, 9789004546950, 9789004546967

Citation preview

H

E

L

A

N

G

U

A

G

E

O

F

E

D

U

C

A T

I

O

N

The Language of Social Studies Education An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts Jason L. Endacott and Michael A. Kopish Social studies is a discipline unique to K-12 education and tasked with the preparation of democratic citizens. Social studies educators work with concepts, theories, and ideas from multiple disciplines across the social sciences and humanities, which makes discourse through shared language complex. Specialization in content areas that comprise the social studies can further complicate shared understanding of essential terms.

The Language of Social Studies Education

T

The Language of Social Studies Education offfers essential information for key concepts organized to reflect the contemporary context of K-12 social studies education. The concepts found within this volume reflect the breadth of the discipline while also providing the foundational knowledge needed to develop deeper understanding. Each entry is based on multiple sources that invite the reader to pursue their interests through further inquiry.

Cover illustration: iStock.com/Trifonov_Evgeniy

Jason L. Endacott and Michael A. Kopish

Michael A. Kopish, Ph.D. (2011), University of Wisconsin-Madison, is Associate Professor of Teacher Education at Ohio University. He is an author or co-author of book chapters and peer-reviewed articles on service learning, global citizenship education, and teacher preparation.

H

E

L

A

N

G

U

A

G

E

O

F

E

D

U

C

A T

I

O

The Language of Social Studies Education An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts Jason L. Endacott and Michael A. Kopish

This book will appeal to those who are looking for concise information based on respected scholarship from disciplines across the social studies. Even seasoned social studies practitioners will fijind its entries helpful for incorporating new concepts, ideas, and approaches into their discourses on citizenship education.

Jason L. Endacott, Ph.D. (2007), University of Kansas, is Associate Professor of Secondary Social Studies Education at the University of Arkansas. His scholarship focuses on epistemologies of history education and students’ engagement in historical empathy.

T

ISBN 978-90-04-54694-3

ISSN 2666-0121 TLOE 3

Spine

N

The Language of Social Studies Education

The Language of Education key terms and concepts in teaching and learning

Series Editor William F. McComas Parks Family Distinguished Professor of Science Education, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

Volume 3

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tloe

The Language of Social Studies Education An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts By

Jason L. Endacott and Michael A. Kopish

leiden | boston

Cover illustration: iStock.com/Trifonov_Evgeniy All chapters in this book have undergone peer review. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2666-0121 isbn 978-90-04-54694-3 (paperback) isbn 978-90-04-54695-0 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-54696-7 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Foreword ix Wayne Journell Preface x Action Civics 1 Active Learning in Economics 2 Behavioral Geography 3 Cause and Consequence 4 Citizenship 5 Civic Achievement Gap 6 Civic Dispositions 7 Civic Empowerment Gap 8 Civic Engagement 9 Civic Knowledge 11 Civic Learning Ecosystem 12 Civic Opportunity Gap 13 Civic Skills 14 Civics Classroom Instruction 15 Collective Memory 16 College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Civics 18 College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Economics 19 College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Geography 20 College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for History 21 College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Social Studies Standards 22 Continuity and Change 23 Controversial Issues 24 Council for Economic Education (CEE) 25 Counter Narratives 26 Critical History Education 27 Critical Human Geography 29 Cultural Geography 30 Democracy 31 Democratic Citizenship Education 33 Digital Citizenship 34 Disciplinary History 35 Economic Geography 37 Economic Literacy 38 Economic Pedagogical Content Knowledge 40

vi Economic Reasoning 41 Economic Way of Thinking 42 Economics Perspectives 43 Extra-Curricular Activities 44 Financial Literacy 45 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 47 Geographic Reasoning 48 Geographic Representations 49 Global Citizenship Education 50 Heterodox and Pluralist Economics 52 Historical Agency 53 Historical Argumentation 54 Historical Concepts 55 Historical Consciousness 56 Historical Context 57 Historical Empathy 58 Historical Epistemology 59 Historical Evidence 60 Historical Inquiry 61 Historical Interpretation 62 Historical Judgment 63 Historical Narrative 65 Historical Perspective Taking 66 Historical Reasoning 67 Historical Representations 68 Historical Significance 69 Historical Thinking 70 Human Rights Education (HRE) 72 Indigenous Self-Determination and Sovereignty 73 International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) 74 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics 75 National Assessment of Education Progress in Economics 76 National History Standards 77 National Standards for Civics and Government 78 National Standards for Financial Literacy 79 News Media Literacy Education 80 Physical Geography 81 PISA Financial Literacy Assessment 82 Place 83 Political Geography 84 Politics of Scale 85

Contents

Contents 

School Climate Reform 86 Schools Council History Project 87 Service-Learning 88 Simulations of Democratic Processes 89 Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) 90 Social Studies Education 91 Sociocultural History 93 Space 95 Spatial Thinking 97 Student Participation in School Governance 98 Test of Economic Literacy (TEL) 99 Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics 100 Youth-Adult Partnership 101 Youth Organizing 102 Youth Participatory Action Research 104 Youth Voice 105 Appendix A: Social Studies Organizations 107

vii

Foreword Trying to define what is meant by “the social studies” has long been a challenging intellectual endeavor. Starting in the early 20th century, when the field was engaged in a struggle between those favoring a history-centric curriculum and those advocating for a less disciplinary approach, what has constituted social studies education has evolved over time. In this book, Jason Endacott and Michael Kopish attempt to define social studies as it currently stands through the language that scholars within the field use to talk about what constitutes social studies teaching and research. Given the nature of the social studies, I have no doubt that this project was quite the endeavor. Unlike other K-12 subject areas, such as mathematics or language arts, social studies is a conglomeration of disciplines and ways of knowing, which makes trying to define a “common language” difficult. Yet, Endacott and Kopish have admirably culled the language of social studies into 82 key concepts. These concepts include those that align with the traditional disciplines of social studies – history, geography, economics, and civics – as well as concepts that have gained prominence in recent years, such as youth participatory action research and Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty. I was particularly heartened to see entries that correspond with the critical turn that the field has taken over the past several decades. Is the list of concepts completely comprehensive? No, but one could double the number of pages in this book and still not be able to compile an all-encompassing list that truly captured every facet of the social studies. Yet, Endacott and Kopish have cultivated the primary concepts that are at the heart of social studies education, and as such, this book is a valuable resource for anyone interested in becoming more acquainted with the field. Moreover, each entry ends with a list of scholarly articles that invites readers to explore the concept in greater depth, and Endacott and Kopish have ensured that each entry includes cutting-edge scholarship written by leading scholars within the field. In short, The Language of Social Studies is an indispensable volume that tackles the intricacies of a complex field. Endacott and Kopish have performed a valuable service by bringing this collection of concepts into one space. Regardless of whether one is a seasoned social studies educator or new to the field, readers will leave this book with a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes the social studies. Wayne Journell University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Preface The Language of Social Studies is an introduction to the field provided through definitions of many of the foundation concepts a succinct and, we hope, engaging form. The first task in creating this volume, as with the others in the series to which it belongs, was the selection of terms. Given the expansive nature of the Social Studies as a uniquely K-12 academic subject, this task was daunting. Identifying important topics was straightforward, but space limitations ultimately required us to decide which terms would be left on the proverbial “cutting room floor.” Our selection “process” resulting in the terms included in Language of Social Studies was very much deliberate, and as with any subjectively designed process, there are flaws and points of departure for others’ assessment of our judgment. We see these disagreements as not only natural, but desirable, given the contested nature of our discipline’s socially constructed concepts, constructs, theories, representations, and epistemologies. We began our process by thinking about the concept of “language,” which is an element of discourse, or the communications, conversations, deliberations, and debates surrounding a given topic. With this in mind, we decided to focus on language that is currently utilized in disciplinary discourses. There is language that is considered timeless in the social studies (e.g., citizenship, history, economics, civics, etc.), while other language emerges and retreats from active discourse along with changes in the discipline and the world around us. Unfortunately, there were topics, terms, and concepts that might be worthy of inclusion, but are not part of contemporary K-12 social studies discourse. After narrowing our list of terms temporally by focusing on contemporary language, we next considered the question of context. Discourse in the humanities and social sciences occurs in a broad range of educational and civic spaces. It would be impossible to consider every social science term trending on Twitter or considered foundational by academics in the disciplines that comprise the social studies. Our need for a delimiting contextual factor caused us to settle on the “K-12” aspect of K-12 Social Studies Education. Again, there is language that has migrated in and out of this context, as well as language that may yet become part of that discourse. So for this volume, we focus on language that plays a prominent role in contemporary discourse of K-12 Social Studies Education. It is perfectly understandable that this litmus test would be a point of departure with our selection heuristic for some readers. Yet, space in most manuscripts is a zero-sum affair, with the inclusion of one topic recommending the exclusion of another. We found it difficult to justify the exclusion of widely used terms in K-12 Social Studies Education in favor of those we would prefer to see more widely used.

Preface 

xi

Social studies is a uniquely K-12 creation, one that encompasses a broad range of disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. The National Council for the Social Studies specifically identifies eleven different academic disciplines as contributors to K-12 social studies education and leaves the door open for additional “appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences.” However, the various standards that determine the organization of social studies curriculum are largely focused on Civics, Economics, Geography, and History Education. Each of these main disciplines has its own unique discourse, and within these discourses exists a variety of worldviews or ideologies through which we view citizenship and each discipline’s role in fostering it. Furthermore, these worldviews or ideologies inform ontological and epistemological beliefs, which influence the ways of knowing that contribute to citizenship education in K-12 settings. Consequently, our ideological views of citizenship and the nature of knowledge shape the language we use in the social studies. This leads us to the matter of representation in the social studies and how to approach it in a volume such as this one. Since these entries are limited in length, it can be difficult to appropriately address complex topics in the depth they deserve within a single entry. Therefore, instead of attempting separate entries that reflect the diverse range of identities that comprise the social studies, we did our best to include them within the entries most pertinent to contemporary discourse. In doing so, we hope that the reader encounters these perspectives across the pages of this text rather than within a single entry. By addressing them across the volume, we were able to afford them more attention, and hopefully gave readers something to think about within that context. We learned a great deal about the social studies as an academic discipline in K-12 schools while making these decisions, and we hope that readers of this text who are curious about an unfamiliar topic, or in need of a foundational definition and brief explication, will find it helpful for quick reference or citation. This format lends itself well to topics that are widely used and well understood, even they remain contested due to their social, political, and cultural constructions. In that sense, this book is a gateway to further reading and investigation, and we hope that the entries found here encourage readers to explore these topics in greater depth elsewhere.

Contributing Authors

The development of this book has been a productive partnership between faculty members and graduate students who contributed the definitions found here. Although each term has been closely edited, each of the primary authors contributed entries in history and geography education (Jason Endacott) and

xii

Preface

civic and economic education (Michael Kopish). Primary authors of additional contributors can be identified by the inclusion of their initials at the conclusion of each entry. Readers and authors alike should recognize that the editors occasionally engaged in significant rewriting for clarity, space considerations and readability. Therefore, we take full responsibility for the nature, accuracy and format of the final definitions presented here. KK  Katherine Kieninger JW   Jacob Warren

The Language of Social Studies Education

1

Action Civics has “students do civics and behave as citizens by engaging in a cycle of research, action, and reflection about problems they care about personally while learning about deeper principles of effective civic and especially political action” (Levinson, 2012, p. 224). In practice, four principles guide action civics (Gingold, 2013): – Collective Action: where young people learn by doing in authentic civic venues – Youth Voice: where young peoples’ expression, knowledge, concerns, and opinions are valued and heard – Youth Expertise: where young people have opportunities to share their knowledge with decision-makers and empower youth to influence public policy debates – Reflection: to enrich the process and enable young people to develop a sense of themselves as active citizens Engagement in action civics involves a cycle of inquiry to action to reflection that is youth-driven, meaning selecting issues to explore driven by student interest and choice. Supportive adults scaffold youth-driven civic projects and help implement action civics based on local contexts. Action civics is not a liberal or conservative program, nor does it apply to one or limited issues. Action civics involves six steps: (1) examine community, (2) identify key issues, (3) research, (4) strategize, (5) take action, (6) reflection. Outcomes associated with action civics move beyond the traditional civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions ensconced in classroom-based civic education literature and practice. Specifically, the action civics theory of change describes six outcomes: civic and cultural transformation; 21st-century positive youth leadership; active and informed citizens; youth civic participation; youth civic creation; and academically successful students (Gingold, 2013). Action civics work to effect changes at both community and individual levels by broadening the incorporation of youth voice and toward transforming and strengthening democracy. Gingold, J. (2013). Building an evidence-based practice of action civics: The current state of assessments and recommendations for the future. CIRCLE Working Paper 78. https://circle.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/2019-12/WP78_BuildingCaseActionCivics_2013.pdf Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press.

2

Endacott and Kopish

Active Learning in Economics is an umbrella concept in economic education under which many engaging and innovative classroom practices exist, such as technology-related activities, simulations, role-playing, and games (Henning, 2017). Economic education has a long history of “chalk and talk” as the primary method of instruction (Becker & Watts, 2001). Advances in how educational psychology could inform teaching economics (Schug, 1986) and influences from the New Social Studies movement (Armento, 2010) spurred a transition to active learning approaches to teaching economic concepts in age-appropriate and experiential ways. Collectively, active learning strategies and practices are a way to engage students, of all levels and experiences, in economic learning and reasoning. It is important to note that while much of the literature base of active learning describes teaching strategies and methods (Miller & VanFossen, 2008), there is no conclusive empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of active learning compared to traditional, teacher-centered practices (Watts & Walstad, 2011). Armento, B. J. (2010). Economics in the new social studies. In B. S. Stern (Ed.), The new social studies: People, projects, perspectives (pp. 193–212). Information Age. Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (2001). Teaching economics at the start of the 21st century: Still chalkand talk. American Economic Review, 91(2), 446–451. Henning, M. B. (2017). Introduction: Promising economic education practices from the past to the present. In M. B. Henning (Ed.), Innovations in economic education: Promising practices for teachers and students, K–16 (pp. 11–31). Routledge. Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (2008). Recent research on the teaching and learning of pre-collegiate economics. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 284–300). Routledge. Schug, M. C. (1986). Economics for kids: 44 ideas for teaching in the elementary grades. In M. E. Haas & M. A. Laughlin (Eds.), Meeting the standards: Social Studies readings for K-6 (pp. 165–167). National Council for the Social Studies. Watts, M., & Walstad, W. B. (2011). What research tells us about teaching high school economics. In M. C. Schug & W. C. Wood (Eds.), Teaching economics in troubled times: Theory and practice for secondary social studies (pp. 200–212). Routledge.

The Language of Social Studies Education

3

Behavioral Geography studies human activity in geographic space through an individual or group’s cognitive processing of their perceived environment rather than an objective reality (Jacobson, 2006). Many concepts within behavioral geography originate in social psychology and phenomenology, since they focus on the ways people experience the world around them (Knox & Pinch, 2009). Emphasis is placed on the human processes and behaviors related to the development of perception, attitudes and environmental learning within a given environment (Butt, 2000). Behavioral geography seeks to move through the abstract process of decision making to understand and develop the perceptions of a person or group of people. It also seeks to examine and understand the human actions which create, alter, reproduce a geographic system, making it more concerned with processes than outcomes. Rather than focus on specific phenomena, behavioral geography takes a wider look to generalize human experiences and the decisions they make in relation to their environments (Butt, 2000). Environments and human behavior share a reciprocal relationship since environments are shaped by human actions and human decision making is shaped by their environment (Knox & Pinch, 2009). Behavioral geography can therefore be essential to several topics, such as migration, urban consumer behavior, technological and social change, and decision making (Jacobson, 2006). As such, it yields an understanding that human nature is not always as rational as it is based on the perceptions of one’s environment (Mayhew, 2006). Butt, G. (2000). The Continuum guide to geography education. Continuum. Jacobson, D. (2006). Behavioral geography. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 17–18). Sage. Knox, P., & Pinch, S. (2009). Urban social geography: An introduction. ProQuest Ebook Central. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography (p. 50). Oxford University Press.

4

Endacott and Kopish

Cause and Consequence refers to the predicating conditions that precede a historical event and the attendant effects that event has on those that follow. Historical causation can be difficult to predict, because unlike the sciences, where causal explanations are determined through systematic experimentation, historical narratives explain events from the past, typically focusing on specific instances rather than general classes of phenomena (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018). That said, humans are the primary driving force behind historical events, though they are constrained by limits imposed by the environment, historical legacies, geography, as well as other humans or groups competing interests (Seixas, 2006). Some historical accounts emphasize factors beyond the individual human element in history, such as economic, environmental, political, demographic, social or historical forces, but when human choice and decision making is absent from the narrative, the resulting events (i.e., consequences) may seem inevitable (Barton, 2012). Analyzing cause and consequence improves understanding of historical events (van Drie & van Boxtel, 2018) and should lead to better democratic decision making by students as they better understand the consequences of choices made in the past (Barton, 2012). Students with a sophisticated understanding of cause and consequence can identify multiple causes for a particular event as well as the role that human actions and constraints on their actions play in causing historical change (Seixas, 2006). This is often expressed through argumentation that should be supported by details, examples, and references to reliable historical sources (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018). Arguments that propose counterfactuals or examine the relationship between the motivations and intentions of historical agents and the consequences of their actions are examples of potential student tasks that allow students to demonstrate their understanding of historical cause and consequence (Seixas, 2006). Barton, K. C. (2012). Agency, choice and historical action – How history teaching can help students think about democratic decision making. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 7(2), 131–142. Seixas, P. (2006). Benchmarks of historical thinking. Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr8/tns/tn1.pdf van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149–176). John Wiley & Sons.

The Language of Social Studies Education

5

Citizenship is the legal status one attains as a citizen of a particular nation, state, or other political entity. Citizenship is a concept central to any discussion of civic education, yet it is also a contested concept that is subject to shifting meanings. Scholarship and curricula of civic education primarily derive from Western and US-based conceptions of democracy and specific models of democratic processes and skills required for it. Related to citizenship are tensions between the demands of nation-states and expectations for people living in a democracy. On the one hand, there is a focus on the relations between a state and the individual through connotations of mutual status (i.e., rights, duties, conduct, allegiance, obligations, powers, and protections). These are explicit prescriptions established by nation-states, codified through policies that specify the nation’s rules, aspirations, and ideals. On the other hand, civic practices provide a sense of knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions that ideal citizens should possess. However, across both nation-state relations and civic practices, notions of citizenship establish exclusion and inclusion criteria supported by symbols, narratives, and discourses that tell stories explaining and supporting the nation’s self-definition and worldview (Haste, 2010). Conceptually, citizenship applies to whole populations, but membership is limited and involves status, rights, and identity (Joppke, 2010). All people, regardless of status, are historically tied to narratives of nationhood that homogenize and privilege the majority’s ways of belonging while excluding minority identities and contributions (Kymlicka, 2017). Citizenship inclusion and exclusion present a citizenship educator dilemma (Banks, 2004), recognized as twin tenets of pursuing democratic ideals and the reality that systems of practices violate them (­Castro & Knowles, 2017). Banks, J. A. (2004). Introduction: Democratic citizenship education in multicultural societies. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education (pp. 3–11). John Wiley and Sons. Castro, A. J., & Knowles, R. T. (2017). Democratic citizenship education: Research across multiple landscapes and contexts. In M. Manfra & C. M. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 287–318). Wiley-Blackwell. Haste, H. (2010). Citizenship education: A critical look at a contested field. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 161–188). John Wiley. Joppke, C. (2010). Citizenship and immigration. Polity Press. Kymlicka, W. (2017). Foreword. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research, and teaching (pp. xix–xxv). American Educational Research Association.

6

Endacott and Kopish

Civic Achievement Gap refers to persistent differences between poor, minority, and immigrant youth and adults compared to middle-class or wealthy, white, and native-born youth and adults on measures of civic achievement (­Levinson, 2007). Research suggests differences in achievement between high poverty and low poverty schools among African American and Latinx students compared to white and multiracial peers and students with higher parental educational attainment (Torney-Purta, Barber, & Wilkenfield, 2007). Studies that measure civic and political engagement (i.e., volunteering, community activities) also show disparities between low-income youth, young people of color, and their more affluent White counterparts (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). These gaps in achievement are defined by test scores, and therefore represent normative power of what counts as knowledge and reproduce inequality across racial and socioeconomic lines (Au, 2016). Furthermore, in civic education, curricular requirements, standards, and articulated competencies tend to ignore the experiences of low-income and marginalized communities (Castro & Knowles, 2017). For stakeholders it will be crucial to redress tacit assumptions and deficit thinking about individual schools of poverty with predominantly students of color. Stakeholders will need to engage in a deeper and more critical analysis of curriculum, pedagogy, and policies that institute structural success and failure as they seek to identify access to civic opportunities. Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62. Castro, A. J., & Knowles, R. T. (2017), Democratic citizenship education: Researching across multiple contexts and landscapes. In M. Manfra & C. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 287–318). Wiley. Delli Carpini, M., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press. Levinson, M. (2007). The civic achievement gap (Working Paper 51). The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C. H., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2007). Latino adolescents’ civic development in the United States: Research results from the IEA Civic Education Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 111–125.

The Language of Social Studies Education

7

Civic Dispositions are the traits and orientations related to democratic citizenship formation. Civic dispositions often derive from fundamental beliefs and constitutional principles expressed in core documents, significant speeches, and writings from our nation’s history. Examples of beliefs and principles include norms of good citizenship, tolerance, respect for the rule of law, rejection of violence, appreciation of and negotiation through difference, and commitments to justice, equality, and fairness. Influencing young peoples’ decisions to participate in civic life are different sets of beliefs and experiences. They may carry beliefs that individuals can influence the government (political efficacy), beliefs that they can influence the government (individual efficacy), beliefs that there is a duty to participate in civil society (civic duty), and views of being a part of a civic community (civic identity) (Levinson, 2010). The development of civic identity is a prime task of adolescence that signals one’s commitments toward civic and political participation (Youniss, 2011). Thus, understanding what motivates young people – their concerns and interests – is an essential starting point for civic educators to know why, when, and how young people become engaged within their civic communities (Haste, 2010). Civic identity is a fluid psychosocial process that involves sense-making and negotiating one’s role and place in civic communities (Carretero et al., 2016). Civic identity involves one’s sense of civic agency and civic efficacy. Civic agency refers to one’s sense of meaning and responsibility to the welfare of the community. In contrast, civic efficacy is confidence in their ability to act and effect change. Both civic agency and civic efficacy develop through high-quality civic practice opportunities (Kahne & Westheimer, 2006). Carretero, M., Haste, H., & Bermudez, A. (2016). Civic education. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 295–308). Routledge. Haste, H. (2010). Citizenship education: A critical look at a contested field. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 161–188). John Wiley. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2006, April). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society. PSOnline, pp. 289–296. Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement (pp. 331–361). John Wiley & Sons. Youniss, J. (2011). Civic education: What schools can do to encourage civic identity and action. Applied Developmental Science, 15(2), 98–103.

8

Endacott and Kopish

Civic Empowerment Gap refers to the differences in civic agency between individuals or groups of people caused by inequality or power imbalances in society. Scholars argue an accumulative effect of achievement and opportunity gaps that affects other dimensions of citizenship (e.g., attitudes and behaviors) in what Levinson (2010, 2012) identifies as the civic empowerment gap. Young peoples’ attitudes partly determine their decisions to participate in civic life. Civic empowerment includes beliefs in: peoples’ ability to influence government (political efficacy); a young persons’ own ability to influence government (individual efficacy); a duty to participate (civic duty), and that young people contribute to and feel part of a civic community (civic identity). These beliefs are disproportionately correlated with race/ethnicity and class and exacerbated by de facto segregation in schools and communities (Levinson, 2010). Students in segregated schools by class and race receive demonstrably less and worse civic education than students who attend more affluent, majority White schools (Kahne & Middaugh, 2008). Decades of research exhibit demographically predictable patterns related to civic knowledge, skills, behavior, and attitudes, presenting multiple barriers to civic empowerment and are a significant threat to a healthy democracy (Levinson, 2010, 2012). School-level differences account for some of the barriers related to civic empowerment. To address the civic empowerment gap in urban schools, Levinson (2010) argues for five reforms: (1) a commitment to improving urban schools and reducing the drop-out rate; (2) restoring and prioritizing civic education throughout the K-12 curriculum; (3) reforming history education to help students construct empowering civic narratives; (4) providing students with opportunities to engage in high-quality, proven civic education practices; and (5) supporting teachers in urban schools through civic learning and civic engagement opportunities. Collectively, these goals provide civic experiencers for students and teachers that are likely to contribute to greater personal and political efficacy, trust, civic knowledge and skill development, and participation in schools and communities. Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school. CIRCLE Working Paper 59. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503646 Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy on civic engagement in youth (pp. 331–361). Wiley. Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press.

The Language of Social Studies Education

9

Civic Engagement is a broad term that encompasses civic participation at a variety of levels including, but not limited to volunteering, involvement with political and non-political community organizations, and student-led school government activities (Crocetti et al., 2014). Scholars also define civic engagement as a list of core activities divided into the following three categories: (1) civic indicators (community problem-solving; regular volunteering for non-electoral organizations; active membership in a group or association; participation in fundraising run/walk/ride; and, other fund-raising for charity), (2) electoral indicators (regular voting; persuading others; displaying buttons, signs, stickers; campaign contributions; volunteering for a candidate or political organization), and (3) indicators of political voice (contacting officials, contacting the print media, contacting the broadcast media, protesting, email petitions, written petitions, boycotting, buycotting, canvassing) (Keeter et al., 2002). Collectively, these examples define civic engagement through a normative view of civic participation in civic and political activities. Of course, this assumes equal access to opportunities for civic engagement, which is not the case in marginalized communities (Levinson, 2012). Normative definitions are subject to critique for defining civic engagement narrowly as a set of behaviors, for not considering individuals’ notions of citizenship and engagement (civic and political) change over time, and for a lack of criticality in not considering that civic engagement may look different for those who are oppressed and lack political power. Pancer’s (2015) Integrative Theory of Civic Engagement seeks to address some of these limitations. This theory views civic engagement occurring at both individual and systems levels and addresses initializing factors that influence participation in civic engagement opportunities, factors that sustain or inhibit civic engagement, modes of civic engagement, and outcomes. Through a systems approach, this theory seeks to redress some of the issues in civic engagement between rich and poor, among marginalized and non-marginalized individuals, and other social divides such as partisanship. In relation to schools. Peter Levine (2007) provides the following definition of civic engagement. Any action that affects legitimately public matters (even if selfishly motivated) as long as the actor pays appropriate attention to the consequences of his [sic] behavior for the underlying political system. In turn, “public matters” include the commons, distribution of goods in a society, and all the laws and social norms that prohibit or discourage particular

10

Endacott and Kopish

behaviors. We need some citizens to be concerned about our political system and culture and try to improve it in an open-ended way, without favoring any ideology. Yet ideological and even self-interested participation is also civic engagement and is essential to the system. (Levine, 2007, p. 13, original emphasis) In this definition, Levine (2007) considers civic engagement as a broad set of behaviors (and ultimately actions) that enhance community life with a focus on issues of public concern. Civic engagement is open-ended to allow for various modes of participation by people from across the ideological spectrum. In the context of K-12 education, civic engagement is both a core purpose of civic education pedagogy and the desired outcome for students. As a core purpose of pedagogy, educators teach with civic engagement by incorporating Proven Practices of Civic Education (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017) and emphasize the civic participation dimension of civic engagement through behaviors and actions that contribute to the community or society. As the desired outcome for students, civic educators teach for civic engagement and foster civic values, beliefs, attitudes, skills, and knowledge within a psychological dimension. Teaching for civic engagement can change efficacy and beliefs (Metz & Youniss, 2005). Crocetti, E., Erentaitė, R., & Žukauskienė, R. (2014). Identity styles, positive youth development, and civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1818–1828. Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, M. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), School of Public Policy, University of Maryland. Levine, P., & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2017). The republic is (still) at risk – and civics is part of the solution. Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University. https://www.civxnow.org/ sites/default/files/resources/SummitWhitePaper.pdf Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press. Metz, E. C., & Youniss, J. (2005). Longitudinal gains in civic development through school-based required service. Political Psychology, 26(3), 413–437. Pancer, S. M. (2015). The psychology of citizenship and civic engagement. Oxford University Press.

The Language of Social Studies Education

11

Civic Knowledge is that which is important or valuable for citizens to know in order to successfully navigate the position of citizen in a given society. Civic knowledge is one of the competencies civic educators seek to develop with students. Knowledge and conceptual understanding account for the declarative dimension of civic learning – what one should know. At the most fundamental level, civic knowledge includes two attributes: (1) core content knowledge of history, principles, and foundations of American democracy and (2) one’s ability to apply knowledge in different settings. The National Standards for Civics and Government and 2018 Civics Framework National Assessment of Educational Progress organize core knowledge by five guiding questions: – What are civic life, politics and government? – What are the foundations of the American political system? – How does the government established by the Constitution embody the purposes, values, and principles of American democracy? – What is the relationship of the United States to other nations and to world affairs? – What are the roles of citizens in American Democracy? Responsible citizenship also requires the ability to apply knowledge in different settings. Educators might teach students about different political vehicles and social and political networks that are used to represent public opinion and effect political change. Students could explore social movements that address issues and perform structural analyses of social problems to propose solutions for change. Increasingly, civic knowledge extends to include understanding of local power structures, community politics, community diversity, and trends in civic participation (Levinson, 2012). There is a growing consensus that civic knowledge also includes knowledge and understanding of controversial issues, intergroup relations, local processes, and community affairs (Carretero, Haste, & Bermudez, 2016). Carretero, M., Haste, H., & Bermudez, A. (2016). Civic education. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 295–308). Routledge Publishers. Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press. National Assessment Governing Board. (2018). Civics Framework for the 2018 National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED599353.pdf

12

Endacott and Kopish

Civic Learning Ecosystem is conceptualized as an ecosystem that involves K-12 civic learning, out-of-school contexts, digital spaces, higher education, and through families and communities (Levine, Dube, & Shugars, 2018). Civic learning occurs in multiple contexts and through interactions that may be complementary, contradictory, and/or parallel in the development of civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions. In schools, K-12 civic learning should occur through interactions and learning episodes that are age-appropriate and enacted through various practices including participatory and real-world experiences (EAD, 2021). Out-of-school contexts for civic learning involve interactions and learning before or after school. There are many organizations that play a critical role in the development of basic civic knowledge and the development of civic capacities in out-of-school contexts including but not limited to the Boys and Girls Club, 4-H, and scouting (i.e., Boy and Girl Scouts) as well as many others supported by local religious and/or community affiliations. The digital space of the civic learning ecosystem includes educative interactions that take place online. Increased attention has been given to digital civic life and young peoples’ engagement online with media consumption (Kahne & Bowyer, 2016; Wineburg et al., 2016) due to its great potential for civic dialogue and debate, as well as students’ need for effective practices of digital citizenship and critical consumption of information (Levine et al., 2018). Families and communities are often the first and most sustained source of civic learning and occur through engagement opportunities and interactions in formal and informal settings, both at home and in the community (Castro & Knowles, 2017). In this space, stakeholders promote a society that values civic engagement at the national and local level (EAD, 2021; Levine et al., 2018). Castro, A. J., & Knowles, R. T. (2017). Democratic citizenship education: Researching across multiple contexts and landscapes. In M. Manfra & C. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 287–318). Wiley. Educating for American Democracy (EAD). (2021). Educating for American Democracy: Excellence in History and Civics for all learners. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from www.educatingforamericandemocracy.org Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2016). Educating for democracy in a partisan age. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3–34. Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from http://purl.stanford.edu/ fv751yt5934

The Language of Social Studies Education

13

Civic Opportunity Gap refers to the differences in access to high quality civic education caused by inequities in society or the educational system. In school-based contexts, there is an overlap between the civic achievement gap and the civic opportunities gap. For example, Kahne and Middaugh (2008) found that low-income students, Latino and African American students, and students enrolled in low academic tracks have less access to school-based civic learning opportunities than peers. In other words, students who are of higher socioeconomic status, White, and college-bound are more likely to have civic learning experiences that include high-impact practices promoted in the literature (Carnegie & CIRCLE, 2003). Unequal access to civic opportunities across socio-economic and racial markers contributes to a disjuncture between the civic ideals of the United States and youths’ day-to-day experiences with the civic institutions that shape their lives (Levinson, 2012). Civic opportunity gaps also occur outside school contexts. For example, low-income urban youth have fewer opportunities to develop consistent and trusting relations with educators and participate in enrichment programs and after-school activities (Kahne & Middaugh, 2008). Providing greater access to civic opportunities enables young people to develop an identity as members of a community, acquire democratic knowledge, skills, and attitudes; all of which significantly associate with future civic engagement (Flanagan, Levine, & Settersten, 2009). Great care must accompany theorizing to challenge assumptions that young people of color and youth living in poverty appear less engaged than their more privileged peers (Haste & Hogan, 2006). Carnegie Corporation of New York and CIRCLE Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. (2003). The civic mission of schools. Carnegie Corporation of New York and CIRCLE Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Flanagan, C., Levine, P., & Settersten, R. (2009). Civic engagement and the changing transition to adulthood. CIRCLE. www.civicyouth.org/?p=327 Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic participation, beyond the moral-political divide: Young people and contemporary debates about citizenship. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 473–493. Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school. CIRCLE Working Paper 59. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503646 Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), University of Maryland. Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press.

14

Endacott and Kopish

Civic Skills are considered the procedural dimension of civic learning (knowing how) and foster students’ ability to participate actively and responsibly in civic and democratic processes. There are a variety of civic skills necessary for effective participation and are often divided into intellectual skills, participatory skills, and socioemotional skills (Fine, Bermudez, & Barr, 2007). In general, intellectual skills focus on aspects of critical thinking and the ability to gather and process information related to matters of concern in civic life. This includes skills such as critical analysis of information, democratic deliberation, collective decision making, and communication (CIRCLE, 2010). Intellectual skills also include considering various perspectives, analyzing political communication, supporting positions with evidence and good argumentation, active listening, as well as making connections between democratic concepts and principles and one’s own life experiences. Participatory skills refer to capacities for working with others and that enable citizens to influence public and civic life. Kirlin (2003) categorized these skills as organization (mobilizing, securing funding, leading meetings), communication (public speaking, petitioning, lobbying, protesting), and collective decision making (coordinating perspectives, evaluating alternative solutions, etc.). Chi, Jastrzab, and Melchior (2006) added skills for group membership and conflict resolution. Socioemotional skills refer to the interpersonal capacities of individuals to handle themselves and manage healthy relationships with family members, peers, and members of the community. Examples of socioemotional skills include dealing positively with peer pressure, avoiding risky behavior, developing healthy relationships, and coordinating one’s needs with the needs of others (Selman, 2003). Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. (2010). Civic skills and federal policy [Fact sheet]. CIRCLE. Chi, B., Jastrzab, J., & Melchior, A. (2006). Developing indicators and measures of civic outcomes for elementary school students. CIRCLE Working Paper 47. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), University of Maryland. Kirlin, M. (2003). The role of civic skills in fostering civic engagement. CIRCLE Working Paper 06. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Selman, R. (2003). The promotion of social awareness: Powerful lessons from the partnership of developmental theory and classroom practice. Russell Sage Foundation.

The Language of Social Studies Education

15

Civics Classroom Instruction includes pedagogical practices and coursework the social studies that is essential for developing civic knowledge and skills for democratic participation. One of the foundations of civic learning is high-quality classroom instruction in civics, government, law, and social studies-related topics – especially instruction that enacts the proven practices like deliberation and simulations. Examples of programs and curricula that promote high-quality classroom instruction in civics include, but are not limited to, We the People, Project Citizen, and Street Law. Research demonstrates students who take civics and civics-related courses that adopt recommended pedagogies are better informed and more likely to vote (Kawashima-Ginsberg & Levine, 2013). While the research literature offers robust evidence to support high-quality civic learning through coursework and pedagogical practices, there is significant variation in civic learning policies throughout the United States (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017; Rafa et al., 2016). At the state level, civic standards and curricula articulate expectations for learning and have been critiqued for emphasizing civic knowledge rather than on developing students’ civic skills and agency for civic engagement (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017). The courses most associated with civic learning are marginalized in schools (­Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014) and result in different civic education requirements across states. Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Lambert, R. G. (2014). Examining elementary social studies marginalization: A multilevel model. Educational Policy, 28(1), 40–68. Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., & Levine, P. (2013). Policy effects on informed political engagement. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(5), 665–688. Levine, P., & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2017). The republic is (still) at risk – and civics is part of the solution. Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University. https://www.civxnow.org/ sites/default/files/resources/SummitWhitePaper.pdf Rafa, A., Rogowski, D., Railey, H., Brennan, J., Baumann, P., & Aragon, S. (2016, December 12). Education commission of the states 50-state comparison: Civic education policies. https://www.ecs.org/citizenship-education-policies/

16

Endacott and Kopish

Collective Memory is an approach to history education views history as a shared body of knowledge about the past with instructional practices that transmit this collective knowledge directly to students. History as collective memory is one of the four primary orientations towards history education along with the disciplinary, sociocultural, and critical orientations (Endacott, Dingler, & O’Brien, 2020). An inherently conservative or traditional approach to history education, the collective memory orientation sketches the past using an overarching narrative that espouses shared ownership of a nation’s history, the learning of which takes on unique importance for those who believe that knowing the history of America’s common political vision is essential to liberty, equality, and justice (Foster, 2006). Those who take this approach to teaching history believe that democratic citizenship and participation in the public sphere requires a collective understanding of the past that shapes historical knowledge and belief. To promote collective understanding of the past, the historical narrative typical to this approach includes emphasis on progress towards national goals (Barton, 2009) and the quest for freedom, highlighting progress toward celebrating ethnic success stories while downplaying ethnic struggles (VanSledright, 2008). Diverse experiences are typically included only to the extent that they reinforce the overarching narrative of freedom and progress (Barton, 2009), leaving students with a “highly selective, sentimental, sanitized versions of American history [that represents] a severely simplified vision of how we came to the society we are now” (­Kammen, 1989, p. 139). History as collective memory is viewed by some as important to maintaining America’s democratic heritage (Bradley Commission, 1988), which makes it popular among traditional citizenship educators who view a common historical narrative as a binding force for the common quest towards liberty guided by a democratic process that relies on citizens who share a collective knowledge and belief about history (Endacott et al., 2020; McNeil, 1989). Collective memory also suggests a sense of shared ownership for the nation’s history, which makes learning a common narrative important for those ascribe to America’s common political vision of liberty, equality, and justice (Bradley Commission, 1988). Students learning history as collective memory will focus considerable attention on the study of historical heroes, due to the assumption that historical heroes “convey a sense of civic responsibility by graphic portrayals of virtue, courage, and wisdom – and their opposites” (Bradley Commission, 1988, pp. 5–6). For teachers, the use of first-person plural pronouns, such as “our” or “we,” when referencing historical events conveys the assumption of shared ownership and responsibility for historical experiences. Since emphasis is

The Language of Social Studies Education

17

given to exceptional political leaders and ideas rather than common social issues or historical figures, history educators using this approach believe that history education should convince students of the glories found in their shared national past (Endacott, Dingler, & O’Brien, 2020). Students learn about the experiences of Americans through narrative accounts, though they do not necessarily believe what they have been told (Wertsch, 2000). Barton, K.C. (2009). The denial of desire: How to make history education meaningless. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut (Eds.), National history standards: The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history (pp. 265–282). Information Age Publishing. Bradley Commission on History in Schools. (1988). Building a history curriculum: Guidelines for teaching history in schools. Educational Excellence Network. Endacott, J., Dingler, M., & O’Brien, J. (2020). To what purpose? The ends and means of history education in the modern world. In C. W. Berg & T. M. Christou (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of history and social studies education (pp. 541–573). Springer International Publishing. Foster, S. (2006). Whose history? Portrayal of immigrant groups in US history textbooks, 1800-present. In S. J. Foster & K. A. Crawford (Eds.), In what shall we tell the children? International perspectives on school history textbooks (pp. 155–178). Information Age Publishing. Kammen, M. (1989). History is our heritage: The past in contemporary American culture. In P. Gagnon (Ed.), Historical literacy: The case for history in American education (pp. 138–156). Houghton Mifflin. McNeil, W. (1989). How history helps us to understand current affairs. In P. Gagnon (Ed.), Historical literacy: The case for history in American education (pp. 104–137). Houghton Mifflin. Stearns, P. (1996). A cease-fire for history? The History Teacher, 30(1), 71. VanSledright, B. A. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge, and school history education. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 109–146. Wertsch, J. (2000). Is it possible to teach beliefs, as well as knowledge about history? In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 38–50). Routledge. Wertsch, J., & O’Connor, K. (1991). Multi-voicedness in historical representation: American college students’ accounts of the origin of the US. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4(4), 295–310.

18

Endacott and Kopish

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Civics supports the civic mission to create an active and engaged citizenry by providing a framework for educators to conceptualize and enact effective civics instruction in the social studies. As a disciplinary subject in K-12 social studies, civics is the “study of how people participate in governing society” and enables students to “practice participating and taking informed action” (NCSS, 2013, p. 31). Content standards for civics appear in Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools of the C3 Framework and are organized into three content categories: – Civic and Political Institutions: includes the responsibilities of citizens, principles of institutions, and knowledge of laws, politics, and government – Participation and Deliberation: Civic Virtues and Democratic Principles: covers guiding principles of official institutions, civic virtues that undergird citizen interactions on public matters, and democratic principles found in important texts and founding documents – Processes, Rules, and Laws: analyzes structures and systems of decisionmaking, governance, and policymaking, as well as the ways through which citizens and governments address public policy issues In the C3 Framework, civic engagement is the ability to participate in civic and democratic processes. Participation engages students in learning how to contribute appropriately to public processes, discussions of real issues; and, learning civic practices such as voting, volunteering, jury service, and different ways of engaging with one’s community. Engagement in civics opportunities may occur in many other spaces (i.e., classrooms, schools, neighborhoods, communities, groups, and organizations) through practice or informed action. (NCSS, 2013, p. 31). The C3 Framework represents an important step in moving civic education beyond memorizing facts toward developing informed and engaged citizens. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113.

The Language of Social Studies Education

19

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Economics supports the civic mission to create an active and engaged citizenry by providing a framework for educators to conceptualize and enact effective economics instruction in the social studies. As a disciplinary subject in K-12 social studies, the study of economics “provides students with the concepts and tools necessary for an economic way of thinking and helps students understand the interaction of buyers and sellers in markets, workings of the national economy, and interactions within the global marketplace” (NCSS, 2013, p. 35). The articulation of content standards in the C3 Framework differ from the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics from the Council of Economic Education (2010), which are conceptual in design. In Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools of the C3 Framework the content overview of economics is organized into four categories: – Economic Decision-Making: examines scarcity, the analysis of alternative resources to assess their advantages and disadvantages, weighing benefits of actions against potential costs, and how positive and negative incentives motivate people to make decisions – Exchange and Markets: focuses on the exchange of goods and services, market functions, relative scarcity, and supply in demand for goods, services, labor, credit, and foreign exchange – National Economy: explores current and future economic conditions, standards of living, human capital, physical capital, natural resources economic growth, fluctuations in individual and collective well-being, and the impact of monetary and fiscal policies – Global Economy: explores the international movement of goods, services, technology, information, human capital, physical capital, and financial capital At the K-12 level, economic reasoning is the fundamental skill in K-12 economic curriculum and pedagogy and lays the foundation for the four basic principles of economics in the C3 Framework. Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2010). Voluntary national content standards in economics. CEE. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113.

20

Endacott and Kopish

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Geography supports the civic mission to create an active and engaged citizenry by providing a framework for educators to conceptualize and enact effective geography instruction in the social studies. As a disciplinary subject in social studies, the C3 Framework emphasizes the importance of geographic reasoning and the knowledge needed for that process. Such knowledge is critically important to understanding what activities might be harmful to a place or what hazards might be encountered there. Geographic inquiry helps people understand and appreciate their own place in the world, and fosters curiosity about Earth’s wide diversity of environments and cultures. (p. 40) Content standards for geography appear in Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools of the C3 Framework and are organized into four content categories: – Geographic Representations: Spatial Views of the World: emphasizes the use of maps and other geographic representations to understand locations, spaces, and patterns – Human-Environment Interaction: Place, Regions, and Culture: explores the constant interactions between humans and their environments through spatial analysis and explanation – Human Population: Spatial Patterns and Movements: examines the composition, distribution and movement of humans and their relationship to physical phenomena – Global Interconnections: Changing Spatial Patterns: examines the spatial patterns of human and physical systems around the planet Each element of geographic reasoning requires students to apply spatial awareness and environmental considerations to the process of inquiry and judgment for geographic decision making. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113.

The Language of Social Studies Education

21

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for History supports the civic mission to create an active and engaged citizenry by providing a framework for educators to conceptualize and enact effective history instruction in the social studies. As a disciplinary subject in social studies, the C3 Framework describes historical inquiry thusly: Historical inquiry involves acquiring knowledge about significant events, developments, individuals, groups, documents, places, and ideas to support investigations about the past. Acquiring relevant knowledge requires assembling information from a wide variety of sources in an integrative process. Students might begin with key events or individuals introduced by the teacher or identified by educational leaders at the state level, and then investigate them further. Or they might take a source from a seemingly insignificant individual and make connections between that person and larger events or trace the person’s contributions to a major development. (p. 45) Content standards for history appear in Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools of the C3 Framework and are organized into four content categories: – Change, Continuity, and Context: understanding the similarities and differences between time periods, change over time, and how changes in political, social, and cultural factors relate to one another – Perspectives: recognizing various viewpoints on the past and present and seeking out those perspectives when answering historical questions – Historical Sources and Evidence: gathering, analyzing, and evaluating primary and secondary source material for use in historical inquiries – Causation and Argumentation: reasoning through the conditions, causes, and consequences of historical events to construct claims in response to historical questions These disciplinary categories work in tandem throughout historical investigations to foster students’ critical thinking about historical events and their lasting influence on present day life. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113.

22

Endacott and Kopish

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Social Studies Standards are a researchbased approach to teaching and learning published by the National Council for the Social Studies (2013) that inform nearly half of the state’s K-12 social studies standards (Hansen et al., 2018). Published in collaboration with 15 professional organizations, the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework supports the civic mission to develop an active and engaged citizenry. The Inquiry Arc of the C3 Framework provides the structure and rationale for four dimensions of informed inquiry in social studies: (1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) evaluating sources and using evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action. First, the Inquiry Arc encourages the development of teacher- and student-generated questions and planning inquiries around these questions. Second, students engage in learning by applying disciplinary concepts and tools found in the second dimension of the Inquiry Arc. – History: change, continuity, and context; perspectives; historical sources and evidence; causation and argumentation – Government: civic & political institutions; participation and deliberation; processes, rules, and laws – Economics: economic decision-making; exchanges & markets; national economy; the global economy – Geography: geographic representations; human environment interactions; human population, spatial patterns, and movements; global interactions In the third dimension, students focus on gathering and evaluating multiple data sources to identify claims and counterclaims and make well-reasoned judgments. Finally, the fourth dimension of the Inquiry Arc encourages students’ readiness for civic life and the application of disciplinary thinking and reasoning by effectively communicating conclusions and taking informed action in public venues. Hansen, M., Levesque, E., Valant, J., & Quintero, D. (2018). The 2018 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning. The Brookings Institution. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113.

The Language of Social Studies Education

23

Continuity and Change are second-order historical concepts that pertain to the fact that some elements of the past remain continuous while others exhibit considerable change. Examination of continuity and change requires the comparison of at least two different points in time; either with each other or with some point in the past and the present (NCSS, 2013). Continuity and change are interrelated and fluid, with change occurring continuously rather than in a series of easily identifiable events (Seixas, 2006). Change can also be obvious, surprising, or hidden, and while it often brings progress, it can also result in decline. Students who understand continuity and change can explain how some things change while others continue across different historical time periods, identify changes that might ordinarily consider to be continuous, identify continuities where change is assumed, and understand that judging the progress or decline of change is dependent on time and perspective (Seixas, 2006). Students should also be able to understand, “how the evolution of intellectual understandings, technological developments, and socio-cultural commitments influenced how agents thought about their worlds and made decisions, how historical context shaped agents’ lives for better or worse” (VanSledright, 2011, p. 56). Chronology is an important consideration for grasping continuity and change since one must understand the order of events in or her to appreciate how continuity and change have occurred over time (Seixas, 2006). Student tasks might focus on the chronological order of events and comparing those different time periods looking for changes and similarities while also assessing progress and decline from multiple perspectives across time. Emphasis on looking for change when continuity seems apparent and looking for continuity where change is assumed can help students move students’ understanding of history past a list of events and, “When they see that some things change while others remain the same, they achieve a different sense of the past” (p. 5). National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). College, career and civic life (C3 Framework) for social studies state standards. National Council for the Social Studies. Seixas, P. (2006). Benchmarks of historical thinking. Centre for the Study of Historical Con­ sciousness. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr8/tns/tn1.pdf VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge.

24

Endacott and Kopish

Controversial Issues center on important events in society and make for important discussion topics within social studies classrooms because deliberation on issues is vital for democratic participation. In democratic societies, there are many types of issues upon which reasonable people disagree. Across political and social differences, citizens have many visions of what constitutes a “good society” and what policies should shape American civic life. As an enduring line of inquiry in social studies education, reviews of research related to controversial issues appear in many handbooks of social studies education (Hahn, 1991, 1996; Hess, 2009). Participation in facilitated, planned discussions of controversial issues fosters the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for effective political and civic engagement (Hess & McAvoy, 2015), and are associated with civic learning as measured by the NAEP Civics test (Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2013). Teachers can employ a variety of discussion-based pedagogical approaches including argumentative, textual analysis, and deliberative to facilitate controversial issues discussions. Research indicates several best practices for high-quality classroom discussion of controversial issues (Hess & McAvoy, 2015). Characterized as Best Practice Discussions, McAvoy and Hess (2013) advocate for the following: (1) students discuss and deliberate controversial political issues; (2) students prepare for the discussion by reading, viewing, or writing about the controversial issue in advance; (3) a majority of the students actively participate during the discussion; (4) the teacher facilitates discussion by encouraging students to talk to each other. Hahn, C. L. (1991). Controversial issues in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 470–480). Macmillan. Hahn, C. L. (1996). Research on issues-centered social studies. In R. W. Evans & D. W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 25–41). National Council for the Social Studies. Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(1), 10–41. Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. Routledge. Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. Routledge. McAvoy, P., & Hess, D. (2013). Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 14–47.

The Language of Social Studies Education

25

Council for Economic Education (CEE) is an organization focused on economics education and promoting economic literacy for K-12 students in the United States. The Council for Economic Education (CEE) is arguably the most influential presence in K-12 economic education. Its mission is: “to equip K-12 students with the tools and knowledge of personal finance and economics so that they can make better decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities” (CEE, 2020, n.p.). CEE accomplishes its mission by developing curriculum and instructional materials while also advancing programs and affiliated state councils that offer professional development for economics and personal finance teachers. As an organization, the CEE promotes a neoclassical economic perspective, which is reflected in K-12 economic education. The Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics (CEE, 2010) are the basis of almost all state standards (MacDonald & Siegfried, 2012), most economic classrooms implement the Standards (Khayum et al., 2006), and leading U.S. high school economics textbooks align closely with the Standards (Gans, 2015). The Test of Economic Literacy, also aligned with the Standards, is a nationally administered norm-referenced test that determines economic knowledge across groups of test-takers. The dominant position that CEE has developed across the nation’s schools has led some to wonder if its approach is consistent with the civic mission of social studies (e.g., Adams, 2019; Crowley & Swan, 2018). Adams, E. C. (2019). Economics and the civic mission of social studies education: Two critiques of neoclassicism. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 18(1), 16–32. Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2010). Voluntary national content standards in economics. CEE. Council for Economic Education. (2020). About CCCE. Council for Economic Education. https://www.councilforeconed.org/ Crowley, R. M., & Swan, K. (2018). What kind of economic citizen? An analysis of civic outcomes in U.S. economics curriculum and instruction materials. Education Sciences, 8(3), 95. Gans H. (2015). High school economics texts and the American economy. Challenge, 58(3), 241–250. Khayum, M., Valentine, G. P., & Friesner, D. (2006). A response of high school teachers to the adoption of state economic standards. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 7(2), 47. MacDonald, R. A., & Siegfried, J. J. (2012). Refreshing the voluntary national content standards in economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 43(3), 308–314.

26

Endacott and Kopish

Counter Narratives are stories, both written and oral, that contradict or provide alternative accounts of past events from the perspective of typically marginalized populations in society. While inclusion in the pantheon of figures in the typical narrative has broadened in recent years to include figures from historical marginalized groups such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. (Wineburg & Monte-Sano, 2008), their experiences and achievements are frequently portrayed in a manner that reinforces the image of progress and national achievement (Barton, 2009). Counter narratives challenge the stereotypical portrayal of marginalized groups in history by sharing their lived experiences and offer a chance for students of color to learn about their ancestors’ contributions to history (Ladson-Billings, 1998). Counter narratives are necessary because not all stories are given equal consideration or judged as legitimate when knowledge is created, and “Stories provide the necessary context for understanding, feeling, and interpreting” (p. 13). Ladson-Billings (1998) offers three reasons for naming one’s own reality. First, political, and moral analysis is situational in that “truth” only exists for a specific person in a specific context. Social realities are constructed through the exchange of individual stories. The next reason to name one’s own reality is the psychic preservation of marginalized groups. Stories about one’s condition can begin to heal the wounds caused by oppression and spark realization of how one was oppressed and subjected. Lastly, stories can affect the oppressor by disrupting the dominant narratives that justify and normalize oppressive conditions. As such, counter narratives are also important for all students who are typically exposed to history through a narrative that legitimizes White, middle-class, masculine, and heteronormative understandings (Segall, Trofanenko, & Schmitt, 2018). Barton, K. C. (2009). The denial of desire: How to make history education meaningless. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut (Eds.), National history standards: The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history (pp. 265–282). Information Age. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. Segall, A., Trofanenko, B. M., & Schmitt, A. J. (2018). Critical theory and history education. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 283–309). John Wiley & Sons. Wineburg, S., & Monte-Sano, C. (2008). ‘Famous Americans’: The changing pantheon of American heroes. The Journal of American History, 94(4), 1186–1202.

The Language of Social Studies Education

27

Critical History Education is an approach to history education that questions the relationship between historical knowledge and power to disrupt the ­imbalances that impact democratic education and generate understanding by raising critical questions about modern discourses and practices while also tracing them back to the conditions under which they were established (Segall, 2006). Critical history is one of the four primary orientations towards history education along with the collective memory, sociocultural, and critical orientations. The term “critical” can be very broadly interpreted and include a broad range of: education or scholarship that uses the lenses of postmodernism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, third-wave feminism, race-based theories, psychoanalytic theories, and critical pedagogy to challenge assumptions in history education by examining how knowledge, knowing, and subjectivities are produced through particular curricular and pedagogical practices and their relations to power, discourse, and identity. (Segall, Trofanenko, & Schmitt, 2018, p. 284) Recent empirical examinations of history and citizenship education have signaled a shift towards critical citizenship utilizing a variety of theoretical frameworks such as Critical Race Theory (e.g., Busey & Walker, 2017; Woodson, 2016), Critical Asian Race Theory (e.g., An, 2016; Rodriguez, 2018), and Feminist Transnationalism (Bondy, 2016). Since it views history as socially constructed and ideological, critical history education concerns itself with questioning why specific historical accounts exist, who created them, and what purposes they serve when we interpret them. For students, critical history educators also believe that learning history is inexorably linked with the production of identity and subjectivity, and view students as historical knowers and agents that will either learn to accept existing social arrangements or disrupt them and work for better alternatives (Segall, 2006). Critical history educators believe that history used in the classroom will inevitably influence the meaning that students make of the past, therefore those accounts must be scrutinized to determine how and why there were constructed as well as whose purposes they serve when they are consumed by students. In most social studies classrooms, students are exposed to “an incoherent, disjointed picture of those who are not White” (Ladson-Billings, 2003, p. 4), and to resources, textbooks, and curricular materials that lack sufficient, thoughtful,

28

Endacott and Kopish

and substantive historical examples of civic action by individuals and groups (Torney-Purta, 1996). While newer history curricula include a broader range of “figures, groups, and histories, those efforts can actually serve to legitimize the master narrative that was originally produced without them in mind” (Seixas, 2000, p. 24). Critical history isn’t simply concerned with inclusion, but rather how power and discourse foster White, middle-class, masculine, and heteronormative understandings (Segall, Trofanenko, & Schmitt, 2018). Critical history is also not devoid of detractors. Collective memory advocates might view its “bottom-up” interpretive ladder as historically insignificant (Diggins, 1998), while disciplinary history educators might believe it to be susceptible to relativism (Seixas, 2000). An, S. (2016). Asian Americans in American history: An AsianCrit perspective on Asian American inclusion in State U.S. history curriculum standards. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(2), 244–276. Bondy, J. M. (2016). Latina youth, education, and citizenship: A feminist transnational analysis. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(2), 212–243. Busey, C. L., & Walker, I. (2017). A dream and a bus: Black critical patriotism in elementary social studies standards. Theory and Research in Social Education, 45(4), 456–488. Diggins, J. P. (1998). Teaching American history. The American Scholar, 67(1), 93–94. Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Critical race theory perspectives on the social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum. Information Age Publishing. Rodríguez, N. N. (2018). From margins to center: Developing cultural citizenship education through the teaching of Asian American history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 46(4), 528–573. Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! Die Kinder! Or, does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history (pp. 19–37). NYU Press. Segall, A. (2006). What’s the purpose of teaching a discipline anyway? The case of history. In A. Segall, E. E. Heilman, & C. H. Cherryholmes (Eds.), Social studies the next generation: Re-searching in the postmodern (pp. 125–140). Peter Lang. Segall, A., Trofanenko, B. M., & Schmitt, A. J. (2018). Critical theory and history education. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 283–309). John Wiley & Sons. Torney-Purta, J. (1996). The Second IEA Civic Education Project: Development of content guidelines and items for a cross-national test and survey. Canadian and International Education, 25, 199–214. Woodson, A. N. (2016). We’re just ordinary people: Messianic master narratives and Black youths’ civic agency. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(2), 184–211.

The Language of Social Studies Education

29

Critical Human Geography is a multi-faceted term that encompasses a variety of geographic approaches and concepts that continue to evolve in their shared opposition to repression, inequity, and inequality in power relations and structures (Mayhew, 2004). Critical human geography originated in the 1970’s as a critique of positivistic approaches to the analysis of space and place (Cannon & Simpson, 2018). All critical social theories seek to reveal the forces of domination within the world, so that those who reflect upon and recognize those forces can gain a form of emancipation (Butt, 2000). Critical theories of space examine how assumptions and geographic representations of space perpetuate inequalities and explore the ways that freedom from inequality could result from peaceful processes rather than revolutionary action (Cannon & Simpson, 2018). Though not limited to, these approaches and concepts almost always include the following: anticolonialism, critical race theory, environmentalism, feminism, Marxism, postcolonialism, and queer theory (Berg, 2012). In addition to examining the perpetuation of human insecurity due to political structures, critical geographers examine international political behavior, including the relationship between governments and people, between states at regional and global levels, and between international organizations and states. Critical human geography, therefore, seeks to link these approaches with the spatiality of geography itself, in the hopes of building a better understanding of geography’s place in society and academia, but also a better world. As critical human geography continues to ensconce itself in the halls of the academy, it can begin to look inward and examine the way geography itself is taught and represented as well as how that teaching and representation may become more equitable (Berg, 2012). Critical human geography is as thoroughly necessary as it is modern. Berg, L. D. (2012). Critical human geography. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 617–622). Sage. Butt, G. (2000). The Continuum guide to geography education. Continuum. Connon, I. L. C., & Simpson, A. W. (2018). Critical geography. In S. McGlinchey, R. Walters, & C. Scheinpflug (Eds.), International relations theory (pp. 110–116). E-International Relations. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography (pp. 120). Oxford University Press.

30

Endacott and Kopish

Cultural Geography is the subfield of human geography that is concerned with the impact of different cultural groups and activities on the landscapes and environments in which they exist (Price, 2010). The authors of the College, Career, and Civic Life Frameworks (NCSS, 2013) define cultural characteristics as the “specific ideas, belief systems, or patterns of behavior that characterize a society or a culturally distinct social group” (p. 104). These groups and activities are likewise impacted by their landscapes and environments, making cultural geography a study of symbiosis (Butt, 200). Anderson, Pile and Thrift (2003) offer five themes that span cultural geography: – Culture as distribution of things: the social, economic, and political dynamics behind the distribution cultural artifacts – Culture as a way of life: the practices that make up life and the values, beliefs, and meanings that shape them – Culture as meaning: deciphering and interpreting the meanings that a diverse range of individuals and groups make of a given context – Culture as doing: exploration of the agency held by a variety of human actors and elements of environments – Culture as power: critically examining the production and distribution of cultural artifacts as well as the actors that benefit from that production and distribution Cultural geography is a field in which new themes are consistently developed amongst older ones. Among these themes, which largely reflect the areas in which their geographers work are: farming, animal husbandry, human movement and settlement, cultural and religious practices, traditions, languages, and sports (Mayhew, 2004). Anderson, K., Domosh, M., Pile, S., & Thrift, N. (2003). Handbook of cultural geography (pp. 1–36). Sage. Butt, G. (2000). The Continuum guide to geography education. Continuum. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography (pp. 124). Oxford University Press. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113. Price, P. L. (2010). Cultural geography. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (p. 636). Sage.

The Language of Social Studies Education

31

Democracy is a contested concept in social studies education that pertains to the system of government in which a nation’s citizens participate directly or indirectly through elected representatives. Democracy is a concept that is vital to any discussion, design, and enactment of civic education. Democracy is also a contested concept; the literature shows an “enormous and often impenetrable thicket of ideas about democracy” (Dahl, 1998, p. 37). For political theorists, procedures, rules, and arrangements that sustain democracy (rather than policies or outcomes) define the standard usage of democracy. Dahl (1982) provides a generally accepted list of “procedural minimums,” which are a set of necessary conditions for understanding the possibility of democracy. They include (1) government control by elected officials; (2) frequent, free, and fair elections; (3) universal adult suffrage; (4) the right to run for elected office; (5) freedom of expression; (6) the right to seek alternative sources of information; and (7) freedom of association. Schmitter and Karl (1991) expanded this list to include (8) autonomy and independence of elected officials to exercise their constitutional power without opposition from unelected officials, and (9) the polity must be self-governing and be able to act independently of constraints imposed by some overarching political system. Also defining democracy are principles that work to ensure sustainability. For example, Schmitter and Karl (1991) argue principles such as consensus, participation, access, responsiveness, majority rule, parliamentary sovereignty, party government, pluralism, federalism, presidentialism, and checks and balances tell us how democracy functions. Together, these principles form a matrix of potential combinations that produce different types of democracies. Examples include, but are not limited to, federal democracy, parliamentary democracy, authoritarian democracy, illiberal democracy. Gutmann and Thompson (2004) provide a framework that articulates different goals and emphases in civic education: procedural democracy, deliberative democracy, democracy as social justice, and democracy as a mode of living. Procedural democracy is grounded in principles of freedom, equality, and the rule of law and aims to prepare students with the knowledge necessary for participation. In practice, procedural democracy keeps order in a stable system and may marginalize diverse voices and perspectives on controversial or complex public issues. Deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of conflict, moral controversy, and dissent in social and political life. While deliberative democracy shares underlying principles of procedural democracy, it expands beyond notions of traditional participation (i.e., voting) and seeks to develop young people’s capacities for critical inquiry, argumentation, and

32

Endacott and Kopish

participation in controversial dialogue (Hess & McAvoy, 2015). Democracy as social justice refutes the notion that simply focusing on procedural elements of democracy will adequately prepare young people for the complex, unequal, and conflictive nature of democratic citizenship. Advocates of this paradigm stress the importance of developing students’ capacity to understand systemic forms of oppression, power relationships, ambiguities of political issues, and commitments to act for social change (Levinson, 2012). Democracy as a mode of living focuses on values of inclusiveness, fairness, cooperation, and dialogue and requires cognitive and socio-emotional skills necessary to build capacities across differences. This approach is represented in theory more than in practice in K-12 schools (Nussbaum, 2006). The republic vs. democracy debate is another important consideration in the United States. While the republic side of the debate acknowledges a plurality of factions to govern (majority rule) and emphasizes the importance of institutions and structures of government, it also maintains that certain forms of liberty resist the demand for more equality and more democracy in all things (Dobski, 2020). Democracy, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of participation – living with others across differences, making decisions about public problems, distributing resources – and privileges civic virtues related to equality (Parker, 2012). Dahl, R. A. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control. Yale University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1998). On Democracy. Yale University Press. Dobski, B. (2020) America is a republic, not a democracy. Retrieved July 10, 2021, from https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/america-republic-not-democracy Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Hess, D., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom. Routledge. Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Education and democratic citizenship: Capabilities and quality education. Journal of Human Development, 7(3), 385–398. Parker, W. C. (2012). Democracy, diversity, and schooling. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The encyclopedia of diversity and education (pp. 613–620). Sage. Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is … and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75–88.

The Language of Social Studies Education

33

Democratic Citizenship Education is “an approach to preparing youth to critically assess the barriers and challenges that impede the realization of greater democratic living within a person’s civic communities” (Castro & Knowles, 2017, p. 306). Democratic citizenship education honors citizens’ experiences and promotes active participation in democratic life by assuming and exercising their rights and responsibilities to learn democratic practices toward a more inclusive and just society. In theory and practice, several tensions exist within the democratic citizenship education literature. Citizenship is a contested concept. Citizens participate in various civic spaces; not all citizens have resources, power, social and cultural capital, or legitimacy to pursue interests in civic or political life; and teachers design educational opportunities through normative middle-class orientations of citizenship (Castro & Knowles, 2017). Students who are most deeply affected by tensions of democratic citizenship education, the absence of civic opportunities, and access to high-quality civic education are students of color and those of low socioeconomic status (Kahne & Middaugh, 2008). To reverse these trends, scholars call for more “opportunity structures’’ as a way to foster civic and community engagement (Watts & Flanagan, 2007), which are meaningful and desirable opportunities for people to act in their community (Keeter, Zukin, Andolina, & Jenkins, 2002). As an approach, the aims of democratic citizenship education may work toward the development of citizens because of its focus on teaching young people to critically assess community challenges and engage in practices to promote better conditions for living in a democracy. Castro, A. J., & Knowles, R. T. (2017). Democratic citizenship education: Researching across multiple contexts and landscapes, In M. Manfra & C. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 287–318). Wiley. Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school. CIRCLE Working Paper 59. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503646 Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, M. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), School of Public Policy, University of Maryland. Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792.

34

Endacott and Kopish

Digital Citizenship is the how people develop and depict their self-identity, engage in online activity, develop digital fluency in a variety of environments, and practice ethics in digital spaces. Digital citizenship is a contested concept as scholars attempt to construct components and frameworks (Choi, 2016; Ribble, 2015). Despite differences among scholars, the literature on digital citizenship coalesces around four critical elements (Kim & Choi, 2018). The first relates to self-identity, building one’s values and beliefs in a digital environment, and mitigating risks. A second element, activity online, encourage positive and reasonable engagement and activity with others through rational decision-making. Fluency for digital environments is the third element and addresses the use of software and hardware and adapt to changes in the digital environment. Finally, ethics for a digital environment focuses on understanding and respect for the rights and obligations of others in digital spaces. The digital age presents significant challenges to civic educators. They will need to move beyond disseminating civic knowledge to also teach and act as role models, facilitators, and mentors of digital information activities (Ribble, 2015). Because digital technology is expanding, educators should view digital citizenship as multidimensional and different but not separate from notions of citizenship in offline civic lives. To this end, Choi’s (2016) scholarship connecting digital citizenship and democratic citizenship education provides some conceptual clarity and guidance. Choi (2016) argues, “citizenship in the Internet era can be referred to as digital citizenship, including abilities, thinking, and action regarding Internet use, which allows people to understand, navigate, engage in, and transform self, community, society, and the world” (p. 584). In Choi’s (2016) view, digital citizenship includes shared elements of citizenship: social responsibility, being well-informed about issues, and active engagement. As more of our civic lives move to digital spaces, scholars will need to examine the evolving role of and access to technologies and digital information as potential criteria for citizenship. Choi, M. (2016). A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the internet age. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(4), 565–607. Kim, M., & Choi, D. (2018). Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational setting. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 155–171. Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know. Interna­ tional Society for Technology in Education.

The Language of Social Studies Education

35

Disciplinary History utilizes tools and ways of knowing to analyze and evaluate versions of the past using primary and secondary historical source material to understand and evaluate change and continuity over time. Disciplinary history is one of the four primary orientations towards history education along with the collective memory, sociocultural, and critical orientations (Endacott, Dingler, & O’Brien, 2020). Disciplinary history educators view knowledge that is derived from historical evidence as crucial to the deliberative process because such knowledge can shield citizens from accepting all historical accounts as eminently believable and protect them from nefarious attempts to mislead them (VanSledright, 2011). The interpretation of source material relies heavily on historical thinking, an amalgamation of concepts such as establishing historical significance, using primary source evidence, examining continuity and change, analyzing cause and consequence, taking historical perspectives, and attempting to understand the ethical dimension of history (Seixas & Morton, 2013). Early research into historical thinking (Hallam, 1979) seemed to suggest that a disciplinary history approach was only appropriate for students of high school age. However, that thinking shifted in the 1980s and 1990s as researchers began to study students’ thinking using a constructivist rather than developmental approach (Levstik & Pappas, 1987). Sam Wineburg, one of the most widely recognized proponents of disciplinary history, led many researchers to consider the unique cognitive processes of learning history in the early 1990s, and disciplinary history gathered considerably more momentum after the publication of Wineburg’s Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts in 2001. In the United Kingdom, the Schools Council History Project led to sweeping curricular changes that shifted the focus to knowing “how” history happened rather than just knowing the events that occurred (Rogers, 1984). Specifically, the disciplinary history addresses informed citizenship using disciplinary tools such as invoking inquiry, using key habits of the discipline, and accessing multiple texts (Maderino & Wickens, 2014). The goal is to empower students to interpret history for themselves and communicate their interpretations to others, which is largely accomplished through the creation of narrative or argumentation (Moje, 2008). In a modern world in which students are bombarded by instantly available information from sources that are often quite dubious, the ability to judge sources, corroborate, and contextualize information is a powerful weapon against propaganda masquerading as news (Endacott, Dingler, & O’Brien, 2018). Disciplinary history’s focus on individual interpretation, and the tools afforded by historical thinking, especially the sourcing of evidence, seeks to

36

Endacott and Kopish

“extend the range of situations one is equipped to recognize, and the range of possibilities one is prepared to meet” (Lee, 1984, p. 2). Disciplinary history privileges process and product over content and offers some of the necessary tools for solving society’s problems, but unlike the other orientations to history education, it also lacks a positional stance that provides direction for students in solving those problems (Endacott et al., 2020). Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Boddington, T. (1984). The schools council history 13–16 project. The History and Social Science Teacher, 19(3), 129–137. Booth, M. (1983). Skills, concepts and attitudes: The development of adolescent children’s ­historical thinking. History and Theory, 22, 101–117. Dulberg, N. (2005). The theory behind how students learn: Applying developmental theory to research on children’s historical thinking. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(4), 508–531. Endacott, J., Dingler, M., & O’Brien, J. (2020). To what purpose? The ends and means of history education in the modern world. In C. W. Berg & T. M. Christou (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of history and social studies education (pp. 541–573). Springer International Publishing. Hallam, R. (1979). Attempting to improve logical thinking in school history. Research in Educa­ tion, 21, 11–23. Lee, P. (1984). Why learn history? In A. K. Dickinson, P. J. Lee, & P. J. Rogers (Eds.), Learning history (pp. 1–19). Heinemann. Levstik, L. S., & Pappas, C. C. (1987). Exploring the development of historical understanding. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(1), 1–15. Manderino, M., & Wickens, C. (2014). Addressing disciplinary literacy in the CCSS. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 42(2), 28–39. Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107. Rogers, P. J. (1984). Why teach history? In A. K. Dickinson, P. J. Lee, & P. J. Rogers (Eds.), Learning history (pp. 21–39). Heinemann. Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! Die Kinder! Or, does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history (pp. 19–37). NYU Press. Shemilt, D. (1984). Beauty and the philosopher: Empathy in history and classroom. In A. K. Dickinson, P. J. Lee, & P. J. Rogers (Eds.), Learning history (pp. 39–84). Heinemann.

The Language of Social Studies Education

37

Economic Geography examines the creation, diffusion, and consumption of wealth and economic activities over a variety of spatial scales, from global to local levels, as well as how those activities change in their movements across time and space (Warf, 2006). Early economic geographers focused on what was produced where, though more modern studies have shifted towards a wider range of issues that study the spatial composition of capitalism (Mayhew, 2004). Modern economic geographers try to unpack the reasons behind unequal spatial development – the uneven distribution of human activities and standards of living present since the dawn of civilization (Combes, Mayer, & Thisse, 2008). This includes development and underdevelopment, and an understanding of the relationships between the more and less developed worlds; the link between economic systems and geography; technological impacts on spaces; the impact of particular social and cultural contexts on economic developments of a given place; the influence of class, race, and gender in economic systems and how those systems depend on or discriminate against them (Mayhew, 2004). As such, economic geography acts as more of a spatially ideological and philosophical lens with which to view the world, rather than a simple series of charts and graphs. Butt, G. (2000). The Continuum guide to geography education. Continuum. Combes, P.-P., Mayer, T., & Thisse, J.-F. (2008). Economic geography: The integration of regions and nations. Princeton University Press. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography. Oxford University Press. Warf, B. (2006). Economic geography. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 118–124). Sage.

38

Endacott and Kopish

Economic Literacy is the capacity to engage in economic reasoning through the application of economic concepts and analyses to inform decision-making. One of the goals of economic education is to foster the development of economic literacy among K-12 students, which involves developing economic reasoning and the economic way of thinking. Miller and VanFossen (2008) offer a rationale for economic literacy, which emphasizes individuals’ roles in society and economic reasoning: – The value of economic in the various roles people play in society (e.g., consumers, savers, investors); – The benefits of economic reasoning to citizenship and decision-making on public issues; – The importance of the application of economics and of economic reasoning, not merely knowledge of economic facts and concepts; – The ubiquitous nature of economic phenomena (pp. 285–286). The emphasis on citizenship and reasoning in rationales for economic literacy is featured prominently among scholars who view it as integral toward the development of an informed and engaged citizenry; people who can evaluate micro-and macro-level economic issues (Marri, 2017; NCSS, 2013; ­Walstad, 1998). Marri (2017) summarizes the citizenship and reasoning sentiment accordingly, Economic literacy has become as essential as reading and writing … We must be able to think and speak quantitatively or turn control of much of our lives over to those who do … In fact, these increasingly complex and uncertain economic times have given even those of us who have been managing our financial lives successfully a recent and painful experience with what it means to lose control over our future plans. (p. 172) In the economic education literature, there is no agreed-upon definition of economic literacy. Two examples offer some conceptual clarity. The first definition reads: Economic literacy is the ability to identify economic problems, alternatives, costs, and benefits; analyze incentives at work in situations; examine the consequences of changes in conditions; collect and organize evidence; and weigh costs against benefits. (North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2003, as cited in Marri, 2017, p. 172)

The Language of Social Studies Education

39

A second clear operational definition presented in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (2012) – Economics framework is helpful: Economic literacy includes an understanding of: the fundamental constraints imposed by limited resources, the resulting choices people have to make, and the tradeoffs they face; how economies and markets work and how people function within them; the benefits and costs of economic interaction and the interdependence among people and nations. Economic literacy also includes having the skills that allow people to function effectively as consumers, producers, savers, investors, and responsible citizens. These skills include economic reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making, and analyzing real-life situations. (p. iv) Both definitions emphasize economic decision-making, focusing on costbenefit analysis applying concepts such as scarcity, alternative choices, and opportunity costs. Thus, economic literacy includes knowledge of economic concepts and applying basic economic analysis to address economic problems. Marri, A. R. (2017). Fostering economic literacy for K-12 students through the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework. In M. B. Henning (Ed.), Innovations in economic education: Promising practices for teachers and students, K-16 (pp. 171–184). Routledge. Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (2008). Recent research on the teaching and learning of pre-collegiate economics. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 284–300). Routledge. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2012). The NAEP economics achievement levels for grade 12. U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/economics/ achieve.aspx National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113. Walstad, W. (1998). Why it’s important to understand economics. The Region, Banking and Policy Issues Magazine, 11(3). https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1998/ why-its-important-to-understand-economics

40

Endacott and Kopish

Economic Pedagogical Content Knowledge is the body of foundational knowledge that social studies teachers need to develop and deliver effective economics classroom instruction. Economic pedagogical content knowledge derives from the best practices of secondary economics teachers (Ayers, 2018). Developed from previous pedagogical content knowledge literature (Ball, 1993; Ball et al., 2008; Shulman, 1987), the economic pedagogical content knowledge framework consists of the following domains: horizon content knowledge, specialized content knowledge, knowledge of content and teaching, and knowledge of content and students (Ayers, 2018). Horizon content knowledge is the knowledge teachers use to identify curriculum connections across subjects, grades, and economic courses. Teachers showcasing horizon content knowledge can activate students’ prior knowledge and deliberately foreshadow economic concepts that will be foundational for future economic learning. Specialized content knowledge includes economic citizenship preparation and developing students’ economic reasoning skills. Preparing students to be economic citizens includes ensuring they understand how current events, economics, and students’ personal lives are interrelated. Students’ specialized content knowledge includes frequently and practically using economic reasoning tools, including the ability to use “supply and demand graphs, production possibilities frontier graphs, circular flow of money in a market economy models, cost-benefit analysis charts, PACED decision-making models, and the economic way of thinking (EWT)” (Ayers, 2018, p. 77). A teacher’s knowledge of economics content and teaching includes providing active learning opportunities in the classroom. Finally, a knowledge of economics content and students is a teacher’s ability to make the economic content relevant and strategically scaffold the content, so students are introduced to familiar or less complex content first. – KK Ayers, C. A. (2018). A first step toward a practice-based theory of pedagogical content knowledge in secondary economics. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 42(1), 61–79. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

The Language of Social Studies Education

41

Economic Reasoning is considered a paradigm that consists of three core components: an understanding of economic assumptions, deductive reasoning process, and knowledge of economic concepts (Wentworth, 1987). Understanding of economic assumptions is essential to economic reasoning because our economic perspectives vary based on assumptions about human behavior and the economic perspective from which we analyze economic problems and phenomena. Therefore learners must be able to effectively understand the divisive nature of economics (Watts, 2004). The second component of economic reasoning, deductive reasoning process, engages students with mathematical models or logic problems and applies basic economic assumptions of the neoclassical perspective to deduce informed conclusions. Economic reasoning informs the design of national norm-referenced economic assessments, including the Test of Economic Literacy (Walstad, Rebeck, & Butters, 2013) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Economics (NAEP, 2012). The third component of economic reasoning is knowledge of the economic concepts that serve as foundational knowledge in K-12 schools, which can be found in the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics (CEE, 2010) and Dimension 2 of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework (NCSS, 2013). While there is variation in definitions of economic concepts among textbooks and frameworks, the concepts are generally operationalized for students’ application regardless of one’s economic perspective. Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2010). Voluntary national content standards in economics. CEE. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2012). The NAEP economics achievement levels for grade 12. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013453 National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113. Walstad, W. B., Rebeck, K., & Butters, R. B. (2013). Test of economic literacy (4th ed.). National Council on Economic Education. Watts, M. (2004). Economists’ ideological conflicts and consensus on economic issues and their implications for economic education. In W. B. Walstad (Ed.), An international perspective on economic education (pp. 47–65). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wentworth, D. R. (1987). Economic reasoning: Turning myth into reality. Theory into Practice, 26(3), 170–175.

42

Endacott and Kopish

Economic Way of Thinking is an intellectual perspective (or heuristic) that provides students with an economic viewpoint for decision-making when general reasoning skills are not enough (Schug & Western, 1990). In an era of disciplinary thinking and literacy, economic education instructional materials, standards, and resources promote an Economic Way of Thinking, which applies economic assumptions and principles designed to facilitate students’ economic reasoning and understanding of personal, everyday experiences as well as economic issues and phenomena of greater complexity. The six economic principles (i.e., assumptions), that neoclassical economists agree on as a guide for our Economic Way of Thinking are based fundamentally on choices people make to cope with scarcity and rational decision-making (­Harrison, Clark, & Schug, 2017). – People choose: Scarcity of resources leaves people with choices that are trade-offs that require us to evaluate the costs and benefits of alternatives to choose the alternative in which benefits outweigh costs. – People’s choices always have costs: The opportunity cost of a choice is the ­benefits of the alternative given up. According to rational choice theory, people make rational choices aligned toward maximizing their self-interests. – People respond to incentives in predictable ways: Incentives, whether positive or negative, induce people’s choices and influence people’s behaviors predictably. A simple example is when something gets more expensive, people buy less of it. – Economic systems influence individual choices and incentives: Explicit and tacit rules of different economic systems, such as command, market, and traditional, govern how people behave. As the rules change (i.e., minimum wage, tax policy), so do incentives and behaviors. – Voluntary trade creates wealth: When voluntary, both parties expect to gain from an exchange (e.g., trade), resulting in better outcomes for each party. – People’s choices have consequences for the future: With all economic decision-making, the costs and benefits weighed appear in the future as intended and unintended consequences. Harrison, A. S., Clark, J. R., & Schug, M. C. (2017). Teaching and measuring the economic way of thinking. In M. B. Henning (Ed.), Innovations in economic education (pp. 103–121). Routledge. Schug, M. C., & Western, R. D. (1990). The unexpected pleasure of teaching high school economics. Social Education, 54(2), 77.

The Language of Social Studies Education

43

Economics Perspectives are the various ways in which economists, and by extension, social studies educators, conceive and operationalize economics in society and the classroom. Neoclassical Economics Neoclassical economics refers “to the model of the market economy as a self-stabilizing system that always produce[s] the best possible outcomes” (Earle et al., 2017, p. 37). Undergirding neoclassical economics is the belief that individuals with access to a complete understanding of all information required to make rational decisions comparing goods and services to maximize their happiness. Neoclassical economic theory is the leading economic theory driving microeconomics. Macroeconomics and Microeconomics The two main branches of economics are macroeconomics and microeconomics. Macroeconomics focuses on the issues of an economy as a whole, mainly focusing on governmental economic decision-making. In contrast, microeconomics focuses on individual economic decision-making within an economy. Microeconomics would, for example, explore how individuals are impacted by the unemployment rate, by trade decisions made by the government or corporations, and how increased inflation rates impact individuals. Together, macroeconomics and microeconomics provide a complete picture of an entire economy. Positive and Normative Economics Many economists make the distinction between two approaches to economic reasoning: positive and normative economics. Positive economics focuses on making objective, verifiable statements tested by data and facts. Contrarily, normative economics allows for room to include opinions and subjectivity in economic decision-making. This distinction promotes a view of economics as a social science that employs normative economic thinking (Rosales & J­ ournell, 2012) instead of a hard science focused on positive economic thinking. – KK Earle, J., Moran, C., & Ward-Perkins, Z. (2017). The econocracy: The perils of leaving economics to the experts. Manchester University Press. Rosales, J. K., & Journell, W. (2012). “Socializing economics”: Using practical applications to enliven economic theory. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7, 51–60.

44

Endacott and Kopish

Extra-Curricular Activities are school-based activities that typically occur outside of the regular school day and are not a part of the traditional academic curriculum that guides classroom instruction. Civic learning occurs through a broad range of activities and experiences, both within and outside the school. The fourth proven practice, initially named “extracurricular activities,” broadly captured different types of school-based activities organized and supported by schools (i.e., fine arts, school newspaper, debate club, Model U.N.) (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Gould et al., 2011). Later renamed “student-led voluntary associations,” this proven practice accounts for students’ sense of agency in their choice to participate. It broadens membership possibilities beyond schools to include community-based activities organized and supported by entities outside of school (i.e., community group, religious group) (EAD, 2021). There are many civic benefits from participation in activities beyond the classroom, including civic and political skills such as political participation and community participation. Research specific to participation in schoolbased extracurricular activities demonstrates both short and long-term commitments to civic engagement (Kirlin, 2003) and other indicators of positive adolescent development like school achievement and educational attainment (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005). Given the potential civic benefits of participation in extracurricular activities and student-led voluntary associations, Gould et al. (2011) offer the following evidence-based recommendations: (1) student selection of activities should be voluntary and of genuine interest, (2) activities should have structure (i.e., organized, regularly scheduled) and by leadership from a supportive adult, and (3) activities should require effort by the students involved. Educating for American Democracy (EAD). (2021, March 2). Educating for American democracy: Excellence in history and civics for all learners. iCivics. www.educatingforamericandemocracy. org. Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 159–210. Kirlin, M. (2003). The role of adolescent extracurricular activities in adult political participation. CIRCLE Working Paper 02. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Thomas, R. J., & McFarland, D. A. (2010). Joining young, voting young: The effects of youth voluntary associations on early adult voting. CIRCLE Working Paper #73. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).

The Language of Social Studies Education

45

Financial Literacy is the knowledge, skills, and understanding of financial concepts needed to apply those concepts to daily economic life. Young people are more likely to bear greater financial risk in adulthood due to the ever-increasing complexity of financial products, services, and markets. Specifically, they are likely to bear greater responsibility for future planning for retirement, investments, and health care needs and have to navigate increasingly sophisticated and diverse financial products. Scholars and stakeholders of economic education suggest financial literacy is needed. In the literature, there is no agreed-upon definition for financial literacy. The National Standards for Financial Literacy, for example, do not define financial literacy but infer that it entails students learning “how their personal situations and preferences affect their financial decision-making … and the trade-offs inherent in every choice they make” (CEE, 2013, pp. v–vi). The working definition of financial literacy offered by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is comprehensive: Financial literacy is knowledge and understanding of financial concepts and risks, and the skills, motivation, and confidence to apply such knowledge and understanding in order to make effective decisions across a range of financial contexts, to improve the financial well-being of individuals and society, and to enable participation in economic life. (OECD, 2013, p. 144) This definition, like other PISA domain definitions, has two parts. The first part refers to the kind of thinking and behavior that characterizes the domain. The second part refers to the purposes for developing particular literacy. Content comprises the areas of knowledge and understanding that are essential in the area of literacy in question. – Money and transactions – Planning and managing finances – Risk and reward – Financial landscape – Processes describe the mental strategies or approaches that are called upon to negotiate the material – Identify financial information – Analyze information in a financial context – Evaluate financial issues – Apply financial knowledge and understanding

46

Endacott and Kopish

– Contexts refer to the situations in which the domain knowledge, skills, and understandings are applied, ranging from the personal to the global – Education and work – Home and family – Individual – Societal In the formative years of economic education, financial literacy was associated with personal finance education (or consumer economics) and viewed by scholars and stakeholders as not part of the suggested content of economic education. This sentiment, summarized by Calderwood, Lawrence, and Maher (1970), who concluded: “economics is not the same as personal finance” and that “although the consumer plays a vital role in the economy, an exclusive devotion to ‘wise buying’ or how to open a savings account is not itself ‘economics’” (p. 4). The original and second editions of the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics do not mention financial literacy, personal finance education, or consumer economics. Despite these early distinctions, it is clear that financial literacy now receives greater attention in schools (Miller & VanFossen, 2008). The importance of teaching financial literacy is articulated in K-12 curriculum and there are many new federal and state mandates for public schools to include financial literacy instruction (Morton, 2021). Calderwood, J., Lawrence, J., & Maher, J. (1970). Economics in the curriculum: Developmental economic education program. Wiley. Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2013). National standards for financial literacy. CEE. Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (2008). Recent research on the teaching and learning of pre-collegiate economics. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 284–300). Routledge. Morton, H. (2021). Financial literacy 2021 legislation. Retrieved June 8, 2021, from https://www. ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/financial-literacy-2021-legislation.aspx OECD. (2013). Financial literacy framework. In PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. OECD Publishing.

The Language of Social Studies Education

47

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are integrated, spatial, and data handling and managing computer programs that can incorporate and overlay various data fields to aid decision making, mapping, and a synthesizing of available data (Mayhew, 2006). Typically, GIS relies on satellite data, usually in a direct application of resource location and environmental management. GIS provides most modern spatial analysis, which allows for generalizations and specific attributes of spaces across time (Longley, 2010). There are 7 types of spatial analysis using GIS that include: (1) simple query that focuses on attribute values or value ranges; (2) measurement of the length or extent of geographic features and properties such as shape, slope, and aspect; (3) transformation operations that buffer geographic features to create new features within a user defined area; (4) descriptive summaries that use statistics to summarize the nature of points, lines, or areas; (5) optimization by generating idealized patterns that satisfy user defined criteria; (6) hypothesis testing of conflicting investigator hypotheses with data; and (7) modeling and simulation to create models or simulations of geographic phenomena (­Longley, 2010). There is a distinction between GIS and GIScience, which is a discipline that addresses the use of technology to analyze geographic information about places, activities, and phenomena on Earth (Wright, 2010). GIS is primarily concerned with the hardware and software that analyzes geographic data while GIScience overlaps with disciplines such as geography, geology, ecology and oceanography. GIScience often relies upon GIS to conduct analyses. GIS is an area of geography that will continue to see tremendous usage and growth (Butt, 2000). However, technological reliance also presents the problem of equitable access: Who gets to learn and use GIS, and where, and why? Increased access and usage of GIS lends itself to the possibility of hands-on learning and problem solving in specific and local geographic contexts. – JW Butt, G. (2000). The Continuum guide to geography education. Continuum. Longley, P.A. (2010). Spatial analysis. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 2603– 2606). Sage. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography. Oxford University Press. Wright, D. J. (2010). GIScience. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 1284–1289). Sage.

48

Endacott and Kopish

Geographic Reasoning can be defined as the knowledge, skills, and aptitudes required for spatial thinking and application of geographic representations. The College, Career and Civic Readiness (C3) Frameworks (NCSS, 2013) center geographic reasoning as the primary outcome sought by geography educators. Geographic reasoning requires using spatial and environmental perspectives, skills in asking and answering questions, and being able to apply geographic representations including maps, imagery, and geospatial technologies. A spatial perspective is about whereness. Where are people and things located? Why there? What are the consequences? An environmental perspective views people as living in interdependent relationships within diverse environments. Thinking geographically requires knowing that the world is a set of complex ecosystems interacting at multiple scales that structure the spatial patterns and processes that influence our daily lives. Geographic reasoning brings societies and nature under the lens of spatial analysis, and aids in personal and societal decision making and problem solving. (p. 40) The C3 frameworks also state that geographic reasoning, “rests on deep knowledge of Earth’s physical and human features, including the locations of places and regions, the distribution of landforms and water bodies, and historic changes in political boundaries, economic activities, and cultures” (p. 40). Patterns of spatial distribution, both natural and constructed, form the ­political, physical, and human characteristics that describe places. Relationships between spaces, between places, and between the Earth’s denizens and their environments provide perspective and contextualization. Processes such as physical change, human migration, globalization, and human impact upon the environment should prevent us from assuming a static view of the world. – JW National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Bulletin 113.

The Language of Social Studies Education

49

Geographic Representations are historically rooted representations of space and place that reflect the ways places and spaces are labeled, taught, accepted, and understood. Geographic representations have historical roots and influence our perceptions of everything around us. In a general sense, representations of space, “encompass all the ways in which humans bring geography into consciousness, including symbols, maps, remote sensing, models, art and photography, and textual descriptions” (Gilbreath, 2010, p. 2431). Since description is a language driven process, geographic representations are not neutral and are influenced by power relations (Mayhew, 2004). There are two commonly recognized geographic representations – representations of space and spaces of representation. A cartographer’s map is the most recognized representation of space, which are generally produced by experts and codify space with authoritative prescriptions that “dictate how environments should look, function, and support particular types of production and consumption” (Block, 2010, p. 2602). Even though the cartographer’s map is a depiction of existing geographic spaces, they are also necessarily reductive, which means that the choices made during their production reflects future interpretation of those spaces (Gilbreath, 2010). The use of maps by conquering or colonial forces are another illustrate how representations of space created by powerful entities survive for future reference. Representations of space therefore reflect dominant ideologies of society and work in the favor of power. Much like the concept of “place,” spaces of representation are the everyday spaces that people live and act within (Block, 2010). Spaces of Representation are lived spaces that are “produced and enacted through experience, expression, contestation, contemplation, sensation, imagination, and sociocultural and biological reproduction” (p. 2602). This bottom-up creation positions Spaces of Representation to challenge hegemonic social relations, though they are often marginalized or even persecuted if they challenge Representations of Space created by the powerful. Spaces of Representation can be created individually or socially by groups and are frequently informal in the sense that they are not codified by figures of authority or power. – JW Block, S. (2010). Spaces of representation. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 2602– 2603). Sage. Gilbreath, A. (2010). Representations of space. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geography (pp. 2431–2434). Sage. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography. Oxford University Press.

50

Endacott and Kopish

Global Citizenship Education can be defined as a “framing paradigm which encapsulates how education can develop the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes learners need for securing a world which is more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure, and sustainable” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 9). Global Citizenship Education is a contested concept. The choice to include the UNESCO definition of GCE in this entry, for example, would be met with supporters and detractors due to ideological tensions and practical challenges associated with GCE. Scholars have sought to provide clarity to this contested concept by analyzing GCE discourses. Although scholars recognize global citizenship education (GCE) as a critical dimension of education for dealing with the challenges and opportunities posed by globalization, there is no consensus about what global citizenship means and what GCE should promote. Different worldviews and ideologies construct different meanings to global citizenship and education; each situates in a specific culture, era, and/or geopolitical context (Andreotti & De Souza, 2012). For some scholars, GCE is a unifying concept that illuminates different transitions, perspectives, and emphases of global efforts in education such as global education, international education, peace education, human rights education, and development education, among others (Davies, 2006; Su et al., 2013). Other scholars have sought to provide scholars with tools for interpreting GCE efforts discursive worldviews and intentions. Sant, Davies, Pashby, and Shultz (2018) provide a helpful synthesis of the GCE literature and have identified three GCE discourses: GCE as qualification, GCE as socialization, and GCE as subjectification. GCE as qualification stresses essential global citizenship knowledge, skills, and dispositions students should seek to attain. Evidence of qualification includes college and career readiness discourses that emphasize workforce preparation and academic and professional knowledge. Thus, GCE is a neoliberal approach that seeks to prepare learners for economic competition in a global, knowledge-based economy. A practical example is the OECD PISA Global Competence Framework (OECD PISA, 2018) which stresses global competencies required of students to learn to live in an interconnected, diverse, and rapidly changing world. GCE as socialization focuses on cosmopolitan values (human rights, tolerance, peace) and the goal of developing “good global citizens” as somebody that demonstrates understanding and commitment to those values. The U ­ NESCO framework as an example of this discourse of GCE defines “good global citizens” vis-a-vis cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral domains of learning, with each domain focused on learning processes. For the cognitive domain, the

The Language of Social Studies Education

51

goal is to acquire knowledge, understanding, and critical thinking about issues across global, regional, national, and local levels by examining the interconnectedness and interdependency of different countries and people. The socio-emotional domain focuses on learning toward common humanity, shared values, and responsibilities, such as empathy, solidarity, and respect for differences and diversity. Lastly, learning in the behavioral domain is focused on acting effectively and responsibly at all levels for a more peaceful and sustainable world. GCE as subjectification involves the work of critical scholars who challenge the normative ideals of GCE, stated above: advance neoliberal perspectives and focus on individual ethics and behaviors, rather than system change to disrupt global inequalities. Critical scholars question universal notions of progress and development, models of the ideal global citizen, concepts such as democracy, human rights, and freedom, and dominant global neoliberal policies that are entrenched in Western ideals and reproduced by political and economic decisions (Andreotti, 2006; 2015; Andreotti and DeSousa, 2012; Dill, 2013). Critical GCE scholars employ post-colonial and post-structural perspectives in their work. Andreotti’s (2012) HEADS UP framework is a practical example of a tool for learners to examine hegemony, ethnocentrism, ahistoricism, depoliticization, salvation, un-complicated solutions, and paternalism that are complicit in perpetuating structural inequality. Given the differences shared above, it is likely GCE will remain a contested concept for the foreseeable future. The challenge ahead is to allow a multitude of voices to open a dynamic interpretation across time, place, languages, and concerning purpose that contributes to a perspective of GCE that is decolonizing and pluriversal. Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Andreotti, V., & de Souza, L. (Eds.). (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. Routledge. Dill, J. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. Routledge. OECD. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris. Retrieved June 5, 2021, from www.oecd.org/pisa/ HandbookPISA-2018Global-Competence.pdf Sant, E., Davies, I., Pashby, K., & Shultz, L. (2018). Global citizenship education. A critical introduction to key concepts and debates. Academic. UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the twentyfirst century. UNESCO.

52

Endacott and Kopish

Heterodox and Pluralist Economics are alternative economic theories that oppose the mainstream neoclassical economic theory, which is predominant in economics curriculum and instruction in the United States. Heterodox economics includes all alternative economic theories outside of the mainstream of neoclassical economic theory (i.e., feminist, Marxist, ecological). However, a heterodox economist may only focus on one alternative theory and reject all other heterodox theories (Stilwell, 2016), meaning that heterodox economists can often only agree that they oppose the orthodoxy (Lawson, 2006). Heterodox economists are pragmatic in their approach to human nature and argue that orthodox economics disregards human nature and society (Lawson, 2006). Unlike heterodox economists, economists subscribing to pluralist economic thought believe there is room for multiple alternative economic theories and encourage diversity in economic thought, including neoclassical economics (Kvangraven & Alves, 2019; Stilwell, 2016). Pluralist economists believe that there should be room for competing economic paradigms that vary philosophically, methodologically, or theoretically (Mariyani-Squire & Moussa, 2013; ­Stilwell, 2016) because of the fallibility of each individual economic theory and its core assumptions (Mariyani-Squire & Moussa, 2013; Mayer, 1999). Being a pluralist and heterodox economist is not mutually exclusive since advocating for heterodox economics could result in pluralist practices (­Kvangraven & Alves, 2019). Overall, advocates of pluralism take the view that not one economic theory has successfully explained economic phenomena on its own, and pluralist thought would allow for alternative economic theories to supplement one another to construct explanations of economic phenomena (­Stilwell, 2006). – KK Kvangraven, I. H., & Alves, C. (2019). Heterodox economics as a positive project: revisiting the debate. ESRC GPID Research Network Working Paper, 19, 1–24. Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), 483–505. Mariyani-Squire, E., & Moussa, M. (2015). Fallibilism, liberalism and Stilwell’s advocacy for pluralism in economics. Journal of Australian Political Economy, 75, 194–210. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.347788538950034 Mayer, T. (1999). Some practical aspects of pluralism in economics. Working Paper Series, No.9905, Department of Economics, University of California, Davis. Stilwell, F. (2006). Four reasons for pluralism in the teaching of economics. Australasian Journal of Economics Education, 3(1–2), 42–55. Stilwell, F. (2016). Heterodox economics or political economy? Real-World Economics Review, 74, 42–48.

The Language of Social Studies Education

53

Historical Agency can be defined as the ability people have to act on decisions to bring about their goals in a historical context or in the historical chain of cause and effect. Agency is “the ability to act on decisions in order to bring about desired goals” (Barton, 2012, p. 132). Historical agency is a similar consideration situated within a historical context. For the former, historical agency would equate to the degree to which historical agents experienced the freedom and ability needed to act on their decisions. For the latter, historical agency would be viewed as the historical agent’s ability to make history. Seixas (1993) described historical agency as people in the facing choices, making decisions with their resulting actions having consequences, and argued that agency is an important aspect understanding people’s actions within their social and cultural circumstances, because it helps students understand history by enabling them to see themselves as operating within the same historical context as historical figures. Interpretations of agency can have a considerable impact on historical explanations about change and development (den Heyer, 2003). Agency intersects with other second-order historical concepts such as empathy, continuity and change, and causation, which means it isn’t typically studied in isolation. Barton (2012) argues that students must recognize agency as a historical tool that should be used and describes two pedagogical practices to enhance the likelihood that students’ understanding of historical agency will influence their participation in society today. First, teachers should foster students’ metacognitive understanding of historical agency by explicitly calling attention to it and how it is applied to different topics. Second, teachers should help students make connections between historical agency and agency in the present while giving students opportunities to think about how their understanding of contemporary social issues is informed by the concept of agency. Barton, K. C. (2012). Agency, choice and historical action – How history teaching can help students think about democratic decision making. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 7(2), 131–142. den Heyer, K. (2003). Between every “now” and “then”: A role for the study of historical agency in history and citizenship education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 31(4), 411–434. Seixas, P. (1993). Historical understanding among adolescents in a multicultural setting. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(3), 301–327.

54

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Argumentation is a second order historical concept that involves the presentation of a historical claim supported by relevant and reliable evidence. According to the C3 Framework (NCSS, 2013), a historical argument is a coherent and well-reasoned claim or collection of claims supported by evidence in a logical and critical fashion. Argumentation “necessitates (a) stating a thesis, (b) introducing claims, (c) providing a warrant for the significance of the claim, and then (d) supporting both with evidence drawn from the residua of the past” (VanSledright, 2011, p. 55). Argumentation also intersects with other second order historical concepts and is important for the process of historical reasoning (van Drie & van Boxtel, 2008). Monte-Sano (2012) offers several suggestions for incorporating argumentation into inquiry learning: (1) present history as an inquiry-oriented subject by posing central questions that can be answered in multiple ways to encourage argumentation; (2) provide students with the opportunity to investigate by structuring opportunities to read historical sources that present multiple perspectives; (3) discuss inquiry questions along with relevant historical sources; (4) explain the various components that an argumentative essay should include; and (5) provide explicit instruction in particular aspects of writing and show them what good writing looks like. When assessing students’ historical argumentative writing, VanSledright (2013) contends that it is more important to focus on the historical substance of the students’ writing as it deals with historical context, competing interpretations, first-order concepts, and judgment rather than the universal aspects of argumentation. He offered rubric for evaluating student writing based on 5 categories: (1) Establishes/Argues Position – staking a clear position with a convincing argument; (2) Citing Evidence – referring to multiple accounts and mentioning them by name; (3) Corroboration – comparing multiple perspectives directly; (4) Assessing Account Status – evaluating the quality and reliability of specific sources; and (5) Contextualization – staying within historical context, self-awareness, and avoiding presentism. Monte-Sano, C. (2012). Build skills by doing history. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 62–65. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. National Council for the Social Studies. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge. VanSledright, B. A. (2013). Assessing historical thinking and understanding: Innovative designs for new standards. Taylor and Francis.

The Language of Social Studies Education

55

Historical Concepts are generally recognized as belonging to one of two categories. First-order historical concepts relate to the “knowledge of” history; the historical structures, themes, concepts, and chronology used to determine temporal and causal relationships as well as contextualize historical events and provide evidence for claims (van Drie & van Boxtel, 2018). Second-order concepts guide the work of historians as disciplinary guideposts for sifting through the evidence found in the past. They are not the “content” of history per se but are necessary to engage in investigations and to anchor historical narratives (or interpretations) of the past. First-order knowledge is limited in utility without the inclusion of second-order historical concepts, such as historical significance, change over time, progress and decline, causation, evidence, and “colligatory concepts that frame historical narratives” (­VanSledright, 2011, p. 68), that constitute the “knowledge about” engaging in historical study. Second-order concepts are therefore a necessary and integral part of the process of historical thinking, which uses first-order historical knowledge and applies second-order historical concepts to guide and shape the interpretation of new evidence in the process of creating new knowledge about the past. It could be tempting to think of second-order historical concepts as skills instead of concepts because they are involved in the process of interpreting the past and creating historical knowledge but conflating second-order concepts with skills risks the mistaken assumption that the second-order concepts have value without historical knowledge (Ashby & Edwards, 2010). In other words, concepts such as historical significance or agency lack meaning without the first-order knowledge of historical content that informs their use while interpreting the past. First and second-order historical concepts must be utilized concurrently. Ashby, R., & Edwards, C. (2010). Challenges facing the disciplinary tradition: Reflections on the history curriculum in England. In I. Nakou & I Barca (Eds.), Contemporary public debates over history education (pp. 27–46). Information Age. Lévesque, S. (2005). Teaching second-order concepts in Canadian history: The importance of “historical significance.” Canadian Social Studies, 39(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1073987.pdf van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley International handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149–176). John Wiley & Sons. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge.

56

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Consciousness can be defined as the process by which we as individuals, emotively and cognitively, understand the relations between past, present, and future (Nordgren, 2016). Historical consciousness originated as a philosophical concept in German research in the 1970’s and is comprised of three main principles (Lévesque & Clark, 2018). First, historical consciousness is concerned with the practical and ever-changing relationship between the past and the present. As societal conditions evolve in the context of the present, people’s views of the past, and its impact on the modern world also change. Therefore, the second principle of historical consciousness maintains that it is comprised of the “mental operations by which these temporal changes in the experience of time are sued to orient practical life and guide people in making decisions” (p. 124). These mental operations are likewise guided by the “cognitive principles of rationality and truth claims” (Rüsen, 2005, p. 2) as the modern-day denizen attempts to stay grounded while using the past to make sense of the present. The third principle of historical consciousness relates to the way it is conveyed through narratives that help people make sense of the past through the present and situate themselves in time. Narratives, which could be thought of as the “practical function of historical thinking in human life” (Rüsen, 2005, p. 2), come naturally to human beings, which makes it conducive to consciousness and orienting life in the present. While historical consciousness shares characteristics with historical thinking, its emphasis on promoting consciousness separates it as a unique construct in history education (Lévesque & Clark, 2018). To develop historical consciousness, history educators should support students’ knowledge by providing frames of reference between the past and present to foster their understanding of how history connects their modern-day beliefs and opinions to future actions (Nordgren, 2006). Lévesque, S., & Clark, P. (2018). Historical thinking: Definitions and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 119–148). John Wiley & Sons. Nordgren, K. (2016). How to do things with history: Use of history as a link between historical consciousness and historical culture. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(4), 479–504. Rüsen, J. (2005). History: Narration, interpretation, orientation. Berghahn.

The Language of Social Studies Education

57

Historical Context is the specific temporal setting in which a historical event or lived experience took place. Understanding historical context requires one to consider relevant cultural, social, intellectual, moral, economic, and political factors present at the time (NCSS, 2013). Historical context is tightly woven with the human element of past societies because humans are the single greatest influence on the factors that make up the context surrounding an event or lived experience. Interpretation of historical context is crucial for engaging in historical thinking (VanSledright, 2011) as well as other interpretive frameworks such as historical consciousness (Lévesque & Clark, 2018), and historical empathy (Endacott & Brooks, 2013). It is also important to be mindful that one’s understanding of historical context will always be limited and incomplete. This is largely because it is impossible to fully experience the past from a modern-day perspective and that the evidence used to understand the past was not generated for our benefit. Given the limitations of students’ understanding of historical context, history educators should be on watch for presentism, judging the past using modern day frames (VanSledright, 2011) in their students’ thinking. Historical context is necessarily complex because it involves the overt and covert nuances of a specific time and place in the past. As such, it is also important that history educators encourage their students to explore those complexities, not only to resist presentist thinking, but also to reach more thoughtful conclusions about events or lived experiences. Endacott, J., & Brooks, S. (2013). An updated theoretical and practical model for promoting historical empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 41–58. Lévesque, S., & Clark, P. (2018). Historical thinking: Definitions and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 119–148). John Wiley & Sons. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. National Council for the Social Studies. Seixas, P. (1997). A model of historical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6), 593–605. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge.

58

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Empathy is the process of “understanding how people from the past thought, felt, made decisions, acted, and faced consequences within a specific historical and social context” (Endacott & Brooks, 2013, p. 42). Historical empathy promotes the reconstruction of perspectives and experiences needed to understand the actions and lived experiences of historical figures (Endacott & Brooks, 2018). Historical empathy can be operationalized using three interrelated and interdependent facets: – Historical Contextualization: a temporal sense of difference that includes deep understanding of the social, political, and cultural norms of the time period under investigation as well as knowledge of the events leading up to the historical situation and other relevant events that are happening concurrently. – Perspective Taking: understanding of another’s prior lived experience, ­principles, positions, attitudes, and beliefs to understand how that person might have thought about the situation in question. – Affective Connection: consideration for how historical figures’ lived experiences, situations, or actions may have been influenced by their affective response based on a connection made to one’s own similar yet different life experiences (Endacott & Brooks, 2013, p. 43). These aspects of historical empathy are woven throughout an instructional process that guides student inquiry through four phases: (1) an introductory phase designed to introduce the historical situation and/or the historical figure(s), (2) an investigation phase to develop a deeper understanding of historical context, historical perspective and related affective considerations, (3) a display phase in which students demonstrated the understanding they developed, and (4) a reflection phase in which students made connections between the past and the present while considering how their personal views may have changed as a result of engaging in historical empathy (Endacott & Brooks, 2013). Endacott, J. L. (2010). Reconsidering affective engagement in historical empathy. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(1), 6–49. Endacott, J. L., & Brooks, S. B. (2013). An updated theoretical and practical model for promoting historical empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1). Endacott, J. L., & Brooks, S. B. (2018). Historical empathy: Perspectives and responding to the past. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 203–226). John Wiley & Sons.

The Language of Social Studies Education

59

Historical Epistemology concerns the nature and construction of learners’ historical knowledge – the how we know what we know about the past. History has unique epistemological considerations (van Drie & van Boxtel, 2018), and historical epistemology is important for designing instruction because historical investigators are products of their own contexts and present conditions shape retellings of history (VanSledright, 2011). VanSledright (2011) developed a series of epistemological stances that represent a spectrum of expertise. At the most basic level of epistemological expertise, naïve realism, the historical investigator blindly accepts historical accounts and views multiple versions of the same account as simply different ways to tell the same story. History to the naïve realist is a matter of cutting and pasting events from the past, and differences between accounts are attributed to mistakes rather than intentional framing. Naïve realists have very little knowledge of first-order historical concepts and no grasp of second-order concepts. A step up from naïve realism is naïve relativism, which views history as a matter of perspective, and while the naïve relativist recognizes that historical accounts are imperfect, they also hold the belief that everybody is entitled to their own opinion or perspective. Differences in accounts are not intentional, instead being attributed to the process of creating them or the quality of the information that was reported. Naïve relativists may have strong knowledge of first-order historical concepts but may have little second-order conceptual knowledge. The result is the ability to interpret texts, but limitations when applying disciplinary criteria and concepts to that interpretation. The highest level of epistemological knowledge among VanSledright’s stances is critical pragmatism. Critical pragmatists, also known as criterialists, recognize that historical interpretations follow a rule-guided process and that accounts vary because people hold different perspectives – including those who witnessed history. Critical pragmatists use tools to judge historical claims against evidence and to determine which accounts are strongest using established criteria. Differing accounts can all be legitimate if they meet standards for evidentiary support, which means that perspective is also important for the reader as they interpret the work of the historian. van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149–176). John Wiley & Sons. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge.

60

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Evidence is the material left behind by human and natural activities in written, visual, oral, or material form that can be examined and analyzed (NCSS, 2013). Historical evidence is typically used interchangeably with historical “sources,” “documents” or “accounts” by historians, though “evidence” is somewhat more inclusive than the other frequently used terms. Historians bring different types of questions to historical evidence depending on their form and the context from which they originate (Seixas, 2006). Historical evidence is the backbone for historical claims and arguments made by historical investigators, and as such is tightly interwoven with other concepts such as historical interpretation, historical epistemology, historical thinking, and historical judgment. Historical investigators recognize that some sources can be considered authoritative if they are recognized as accurate and reliable (NCSS, 2013), though most historical evidence requires careful sourcing (VanSledright, 2011). Sourcing involves asking questions, such as What is it? What was its condition? When was it created? (Seixas, 2006; VanSledright, 2011). Primary sources may reveal the author’s purposes of the author as well as their values and worldview (Seixas, 2006), otherwise known as the author’s perspective or postitionality (VanSledright, 2011). Drawing out positionality in historical evidence requires analysis of evidence based on the author’s social cultural, and political positioning. Historical investigators must also look beyond the specific historical figure that generated the evidence to examine the context from which the source originated, corroborate it with other related accounts, and read between the lines to draw inferences about what isn’t explicitly stated. Attributing sources in this fashion allows the historical investigator to make better reliability judgments about sources and determine their value for supporting claims or arguments (VanSledright, 2011). National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. National Council for the Social Studies. Seixas, P. (1997). A model of historical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6), 593–605. Seixas, P. (2006). Benchmarks of historical thinking. Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr8/tns/tn1.pdf VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge.

The Language of Social Studies Education

61

Historical Inquiry is a constructivist mode of learning in which students design studies, formulate questions, access, and interpret evidence, construct claims, build theories, and debate conclusions (Kuhn et al., 2000). Considered a more authentic and scientifically grounded learning experience than the typical lecture or textbook activity, inquiry learning can be utilized within any virtually any content domain, though each domain will likely necessitate disciplinary specific considerations. Historical inquiry involves historical reasoning (Voet & Wever, 2017) and is important for promoting historical thinking. Voet and Wever (2017) offer a process model for historical inquiry that includes five core cognitive processes, some of which are specific to history while others are domain general. The first process is sourcing, in which students determine the nature of a source by looking at its appearance and origin, to get a better sense of what might be expected in terms of reliability and content. The second process is appraising, which involves the examination of a source’s content to assess bias and reliability. This is followed by specifying, the third process that finds students focusing on the search for information by asking questions and devising ways to handle missing information. Students then engage in the fourth process by constructing a mental model of the past by interpreting and contextualizing information relevant to their inquiry’s questions. The final process is arguing – the reporting of conclusions drawn from the inquiry process by formulating arguments based on evidence while also considering possible counterarguments. Barton and Levstik (2004) suggest that historical inquiry contributes to democracy in three ways. First, inquiry is consistent with modern learning theories (i.e., constructivism) that lead to critical thinking and learning. Next, inquiry can also lead to more equitable distribution of historical knowledge because it does not rely solely on authoritative accounts of the past. Lastly, inquiry encourages democratic deliberation based on a multiplicity of perspectives based on a more transparent process of knowledge construction. Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523. Voet, M., & Wever, B. D. (2017). History teachers’ knowledge of inquiry methods: An analysis of cognitive processes used during a historical inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 312–329.

62

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Interpretation is the examination, contextualization, and evaluation of historical evidence for the purpose of creating and supporting historical claims, arguments, or narratives. Historical interpretation lies at the very center of nearly all the other history education concepts. Wineburg (2001) described three historical interpretation heuristics that bridge the gap between school history and the work historians do in academia. The first, sourcing, is an examination of source material for authorship, and reliability. Sourcing results in a set of assumptions about what might reasonably be expected from a source. Historical investigators need these assumptions because historical claims, arguments, and explanations, and narratives are built on historical evidence. Wineburg’s second heuristic is contextualization, or the process of situating evidence within specific historical contexts to better understand norms, values, bias, and intent by putting evidence into historical perspective. Contextualizing evidence allows the historical investigator to get a sense for the temper of the times and understand the forces that influenced the author and/or creation of the source material. The third and final heuristic, corroboration, involves the use of multiple pieces of evidence to reconcile discrepancies, bolster confidence in the validity of source material, and broaden understanding of events. VanSledright (2011) offered an alternative toolkit for historical interpretation that includes four primary strategies – perspective, attribution, identification, and reliability judgement (PAIR). Analyzing for perspective involves the examination of evidence based on the author’s social cultural, and political positioning – the combination of which is often referred to as positionality. To accomplish this, the historical investigator must also examine the context from which the source originates in conjunction with other related accounts. Attribution, the second strategy in the PAIR toolkit, situates the evidence’s author or source with a specific historical context and recognizes the author’s historically contextualized purpose for creating the source. Identification is the third strategy of the PAIR toolkit, and it calls for answering foundational sourcing questions about the type, genesis, and condition of the historical evidence under analysis. The final strategy in VanSledright’s PAIR model is reliability judgment, which involves corroborating sources with other related accounts to assess their reliability and value for supporting claims. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Temple University Press.

The Language of Social Studies Education

63

Historical Judgment is a reasoned response to historical events based on the analysis of historical evidence that leads to evaluation of the past guided by a chosen analytical framework or perspective. As with other concepts in history education, there are a variety of perspectives on historical judgment that depend on one’s orientation towards history education (i.e., disciplinary, sociocultural, or critical), as well as one’s epistemology (i.e., positivist, constructivist, critical). Barton and Levstik, offering a sociocultural perspective refer to historical judgment as a moral response to the past. Moral responses depend greatly on the perspective of the historical investigator and seek to affirm what they believe the reality should be for human affairs and the common good of society. Barton and Levstik delineate moral responses to history into three main types or purposes: (1) remembrance and forgetting; (2) fairness and justice; and (3) heroes and heroism. Remembrance and forgetting involves honoring the people who came before us because it is right for us to hold them in memory. Remembrance and forgetting is commonly due to death or hardship experienced by historical figures, with the Holocaust as a common example in the U.S. Curriculum. Those events and people we choose to remember from the past conveys information about what a society chooses to value and what it chooses, or even wishes, to forget. Therefore, remembrance can force us to confront issues that some would rather forget, which can be politically problematic, though arguably beneficial for democracy. Fairness and justice is the second type of Barton and Levstik’s moral response to history, and it generally centers on issues of justice that lead students to react to wrongs done to others in the past. Issues of fairness and justice often lead to condemnation as a response and the desire to avoid similar issues in the future. Examples of fairness and justice in the U.S. history curriculum include the dislocation and eradication of indigenous peoples, treatment of immigrant groups, slavery, and systemic racism, as well as any other event or topic that relates to the disparate use of power and the harm that causes. The authors contend that it is important to help students develop advanced ideas of fairness and justice that extend beyond common sense notions of right and wrong. This includes developing a broader and more inclusive understanding of justice in conjunction with considering how their reactions can lead to positive steps to ensure justice in the future. The third and final type of moral response to history, heroes, and heroism, is an examination of how people should be and what makes individuals into historical heroes. Heroes often serve as counterparts to those that cause injustice and are figures we expect students to admire. In turn, heroes should be worthy

64

Endacott and Kopish

of admiration, yet people are fallible, therefore even historical heroes are not perfect. Barton and Levstik suggest that the answer to this conundrum is to focus on heroic actions from the past rather than trying to identify and justify specific figures as heroes. Another approach to historical judgment is to view historical judgment as an activity in ethics, which focus “on the relationship between moral stances, that is, what individuals or communities take to be right/wrong or good/bad and the ongoing contemplation of what we could or should do (Milligan et al., 2018, p. 453). Historical ethical judgments therefore focus beyond the taking of moral stances to examine how the use of reason and deliberation lead to ethical judgment. According to Milligan et al. (2018), there are two primary purposes for teaching students ethical judgments in history. First, historical ethical judgments help students to understand that historical figures’ actions were related to their perceived problems, context, and modes of thinking at the time. This also includes consideration for the difficulty of choices and the constraints to free will that historical figures might have faced, which tempers outright admiration or condemnation of their actions. Secondly, historical ethical judgments help us see how past actions have impacted contemporary society and how we should respond to those effects in the present. Regardless of the approach to historical judgment, it is a process that is closely tied to historical agency, which in turn is central to moral judgment in history (Peck et al., 2011). Yet, historical narratives sometimes obfuscate the role that people played in events by using passive voice or nominalization when those events might not reflect well on a nation or people (Barton, 2012). These actions might raise difficult moral questions, and by avoiding agency, it is possible to avoid tying questions of morality to specific historical figures. Furthermore, avoiding moral judgment oversimplifies or ignores issues of power and how it is used to bend the will of others. Barton, K. C. (2012). Agency, choice and historical action – How history teaching can help students think about democratic decision making. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 7(2), 131–142. Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Milligan, A., Gibson, L., & Peck, C. L. (2018). Enriching Ethical Judgments in History Education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(3), 449–479. Peck, C., Poyntz, S., & Seixas, P. (2011). “Agency” in students’ narratives of Canadian history. In D. Shemilt & L. Perikleous (Eds.), What does it mean to think historically? (pp. 253–282). Association for Historical Dialogue and Research.

The Language of Social Studies Education

65

Historical Narrative are sequences or chains of events grouped together based on a coherent order that aim for causal explanation, linking events together by theme and through cause and consequence (Barton & Levstik, 2004). Historical investigators create narratives from historical imagination, empathy, contextualization with implicit moral judgments and theories of human agency (VanSledright, 2011). Narratives often reflect collective memory – the stories that reflect a distinct perspective and are passed from generation to generation specific to national, ethnic, or religious groups (Levy, 2017). Historical narratives aid students’ search for coherent understanding of what happened in the past by fitting together seemingly disparate events. They are also familiar because students are exposed to narratives in the form of stories from an early age and they surround us today in movies, books, music, theater, etc. (Barton & Levstik, 2004). However, while narratives are natural for humans to understand and are important for historical understanding, they are not devoid of issues. Barton and Levstik (2004) note two ways that narratives can limit understanding of the past. First, the same familiarity that makes narratives easier to consume can blind students to the fact that they are constructed, which risks the conflation of narrative with what happened in the past. Students have the tendency to trust textbook narratives as an authoritative version of the past (VanSledright, 2011). Second, historical narratives by their nature, are simplified constructions of past events, which means they must include some details and omit others, a practice that can be used to highlight or hide certain things as desired (Barton & Levstik, 2004). It is therefore important for history educators to stress with students that narrative is a tool to access the past, not the past itself. If students are not shown how narratives are constructed, then it is easier for them to just accept them as fact, making difficult to think of history as happening any other way (Barton & Levstik, 2004). Looking beyond the narrative to critically analyze its construction and the counter narratives that may also exist is crucial for understanding the difference between history and the past. Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Levy, S. A. (2017). How students navigate the construction of heritage narratives. Theory & Research in Social Education, 45(2), 157–188. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge.

66

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Perspective Taking can be defined as the attempt to see the world through the eyes of other people from other times and contexts that are often far removed from our modern existence (Seixas & Morton, 2013). Sometimes viewed as the ability to see how people acted in the past and understand why they acted as they did (Levstik, 2001), historical perspective taking requires understanding of the social, cultural, intellectual, and emotional contexts that shaped people’s lived experiences (Lee & Ashby, 2001). The National Council for the Social Studies included historical perspective taking as an educational outcome in the College, Career and Civic Life Frameworks for the Social Studies (2013) stating that by the end of grade 12 students should be able to “analyze complex and interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras” and “analyze how historical contexts shaped and continue to shape people’s perspectives” (p. 47). Historical perspective taking is important because students might have misconceptions about the belief systems, goals, intentions, attitudes, and norms of people in the past, which could lead to presentism – or the judging of the past using modern frames (Lee & Ashby, 2001). Historical perspective taking can help students understand historical figures’ decisions and actions (Van Boxtel & Van Drie, 2012), therefore understanding multiple perspectives of historical actors and relying upon evidence for inferences about how people felt, and thought is key (Seixas & Morton, 2013). Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2001). Empathy, perspective taking, and rational understanding. In O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager, & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 21–50). Rowman & Littlefield. Levstik, L. S. (2001). Crossing the empty spaces: New Zealand adolescents’ understanding of perspective-taking and historical significance. In O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager, & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 69–96). Rowman & Littlefield. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. National Council for the Social Studies. Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Nelson Education. Van Boxtel, C., & Van Drie, J. (2012). “That’s in the time of the Romans!” Knowledge and strategies students use to contextualize historical images and documents. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 113–145.

The Language of Social Studies Education

67

Historical Reasoning is a higher-order thinking process that incorporates first and second order historical thinking concepts as well as historical epistemology and the learner’s relationship with historical study to deconstruct historical topics, analyze them, and recreate new understandings. Reasoning is a generalized “subcategory of the broader concept of higher-order thinking, which comprises mental activities such as conceptualizing, evaluation, and decision making” (van Drie & van Boxtel, 2018, p. 150). Historical reasoning is similar to other processes such as historical thinking and historical consciousness. While the similarities between these concepts may outweigh the differences, some history educators opt for “historical reasoning” over “historical thinking” because reasoning implies a broader approach that includes thinking about history itself as well as reflection on one’s own thoughts about historical theories rather than just the use of them (Luís & Rapanta, 2020). Historical reasoning involves the use of historical concepts and evidence. van Drie and van Boxtel (2018) posited model of historical reasoning based on four main components: – Knowledge of first-order history: the investigator’s knowledge of historical content (i.e., the facts, events, dates, figures of history). – Knowledge of second-order historical concepts: the investigator’s knowledge of historical study including the analysis and synthesis of evidence. – Historical epistemology: the investigator’s understanding the nature of historical knowledge and relationship to knowledge. – Interest in history: the investigator’s desire to pursue historical study. These components enable reasoning that enables deconstructions of historical representations encountered in daily life for analysis of current societal issues as well as reasoning about broader historical concepts (van Drie & van Boxtel, 2018). Luís, R., & Rapanta, C. (2020). Towards (re)defining historical reasoning competence: A review of theoretical and empirical research. Educational Research Review, 31, 1–15. van Drie, J., & van Boxtel. C. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149–176). John Wiley & Sons.

68

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Representations are the manner in which topics such as events, individuals, groups, institutions, issues, or eras are depicted and presented in historical narratives. Inclusion and representation in history cues students to whose knowledge is considered important and whose is not (Ladson-Billings, 2003). For example, historical representations marginalize the experiences of African Americans when their experiences are decentralized by depicting them in relation to whites. History textbooks also frequently represent racial violence as the actions of racist individuals, which fails to take up questions of systemic racism that enables and protects those actions (Brown & Brown, 2010). Historical narratives also marginalize women with representations that portray them in relation to events caused by others, effectively making it appear as though they do not create history of their own (Schmidt, 2012). Indigenous groups are often represented in stereotypical fashion as “violent, passive, lazy, and unwilling to assimilate” (Cruz, 2002, p. 323). The experiences of Mexican Americans are frequently held up as the experience for all Latinos, and are predominantly portrayed in relation to labor, insinuating they all belong to the working class (Rogriguez & Ruiz, 2020). Asian Americans are largely absent in modern history textbooks though when they are represented, it is typically in relation to historical examples of anti-Asian racism rather than the diversity of Asian American lived experiences (Suh, An, & Forest, 2015). Brown, K. D., & Brown, A. L. (2010). Silenced memories: An examination of the sociocultural knowledge on race and racial violence in official school curriculum. Equity & Excellent in Education, 43, 139–154. Cruz, B. C. (2002). Don Juan and rebels under palm trees: Depictions of Latin Americans in U.S. history textbooks. Critique of Anthropology, 22(3), 323–342. Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Lies my teacher still tells: Developing a critical perspective toward social studies. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives on social studies (pp. 1–11). Information Age. Rogriguez, J. A., & Ruiz, V. L. (2000). At loose ends: Latinos in current United States history textbooks. The Journal of American History, 86(4), 1689–1699. Schmidt, S. J. (2012). Am I a woman? The normalisation of women in US history. Gender and Education, 24(7), 707–724. Suh, Y., An, S., & Forest, D. (2015). Immigration, imagined communities, and collective memories of Asian American experiences: A content analysis of Asian American experiences in Virginia U.S. history textbooks. Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(1), 39–51.

The Language of Social Studies Education

69

Historical Significance is a second­-order historical concept that is based on the principles behind the selection of what and who should be remembered, researched, taught, and learned about the past (Seixas, 2006). Research indicates that students typically recognize important events, official history, or grand narratives of U.S. History as significant when asked (Yeager, Foster, & Greer, 2002). This is one example of how historical significance is also a cultural construct because it is transmitted through a variety of mediums including family members, schooling, media, historic sites, and museums (­Barton & Levstik, 1998). The significance felt in present-day memories may also distort our perception of overall historical significance since it can tailor the past to fit our modern purposes (Lévesque, 2005). To broaden students’ understanding of historical significance, they should consider figures and events that resulted in change or significant consequences for many people over a long period of time, or revealed significant information about enduring or emerging issues in history and modern life (Seixas, 2006). Phillips (2002) offers five disciplinary criteria for addressing questions of historical significance: (1) Importance – that which influenced or concerned historical figures living during the event, regardless of whether those events are considered significant in hindsight; (2) Profundity – the degree to which people were affected an event and saw their lives change because of it; (3) Quantity – the number of people impacted by a historical event; (4) Durability – the duration of an event’s effects on people in the past through the present; and (5) Relevance – the importance of an event’s contribution to our understanding of history or the sense of significance felt today. Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (1998). “It wasn’t a good part of history”: National identity and students’ explanations of historical significance. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 478–513. Lévesque, S. (2005). Teaching second­-order concepts in Canadian history: The importance of “historical significance.” Canadian Social Studies, 39(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1073987.pdf Phillips, R. (2002). Historical significance: The forgotten ‘key element’? Teaching History, 106, 14–19. Seixas, P. (2006). Benchmarks of historical thinking. Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr8/tns/tn1.pdf Yeager, E. A., Foster, S. J., & Greer, J. (2002). How eighth graders in England and the United States view historical significance. The Elementary School Journal, 103(2), 213.

70

Endacott and Kopish

Historical Thinking is the process of deliberating on historical questions, through the utilization of first and second order historical concepts, to reach historical conclusions. Defining historical thinking in a single sentence is a difficult task. One might consider historical thinking to be the cognitive processes involved in historical study. However, as simple as that may appear at first glance, the various aspects of historical thinking are considerably more involved than a single sentence definition would indicate. As difficult as it is to define this concept in a single sentence, it is much easier to do the opposite and define what it is not. Historical thinking is not an accumulation of an increasing number of historical facts (Yeager, 1998). When trying to achieve historical understanding, historical facts lack meaning without the engagement of historical thinking. Certain knowledge of historical events is an important component of the historical thinking process, but the goal of those who think historically goes beyond the rote memorization of names, dates and events. Historical thinking centers on second-order historical concepts that guide the work of historians as they analyze evidence from the past. Wineburg (2001) argued that to benefit from the “humanizing” effect of learning history students need to engage in the unnatural act of historical thinking and by so doing confront the “strangeness of the past” (p. 6). However, thinking like a historian is difficult and especially so for students all ages who tend to struggle with “second-order historical ideas, such as historical significance, change over time, progress and decline, causation, evidence, and colligatory concepts that frame historical narratives” (VanSledright, 2011, p. 68). Seixas and Morton (2013) provide a framework for historical thinking that includes six concepts of historical thinking: – Establishing historical significance: What history is worth learning about? – Using primary source evidence: How do we know what we think we know about the past? How can we use evidence to support our claims about history? – Examining continuity and change: How are the past and present related? What has changed and what has stayed the same? – Analyzing cause and consequence: What causes can we attribute to events and what were the attendant consequences afterwards? – Taking historical perspectives: How did people in a different historical context see and understand the world? How is this different from our own understanding? – Attempting to understand the ethical dimension of history: How can those of us living in the present judge people from the past considering the

The Language of Social Studies Education

71

differences in context and circumstance? How do the actions of the past bear consequences today and what responsibility do we have to confront them? There is an interdependent relationship between content and these historical thinking concepts – one is incomplete without the other. Historical thinking is also held up as an important feature for the development of pluralistic democratic education. Toward that end, Barton and Levstik (2004) offer a sociocultural approach to historical thinking that involves the use of “cultural tools” (p. 10) for historical thinking and understanding the past that include: – Narrative structure of history: understanding the nature and format of historical narratives that shape historical information into coherent representations of the past. – Inquiry as reflective thought: the process of using an inquiry approach to raise important questions while evaluating evidence and developing historical claims to reach sound historical judgments. – Historical empathy as perspective recognition: understanding why people in the past thought and acted as they did with a focus on otherness, shared normalcy, contextualization, and differentiation of perspectives. – Empathy as caring: developing personal interest in the past – characterized as caring about history, as well as the desire to help others – characterized as caring for historical figures and their lived experiences. Regardless of whether one takes a disciplinary approach or favors the sociocultural orientation, historical thinking is increasingly becoming a part of teacher preparation classes and textbooks, as well as professional development for inservice teachers (Lévesque & Clark, 2018). Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lévesque, S., & Clark, P. (2018). Historical thinking: Definitions and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 119–148). John Wiley & Sons. Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Cengage Learning. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Temple University Press.

72

Endacott and Kopish

Human Rights Education (HRE) focuses on content related to human rights standards and normative considerations such as the principles, values, beliefs, and actions that are consistent with promoting human rights. In theory and practice, HRE has legal and normative dimensions. The legal dimension addresses content associated with human rights standards and treaties and covenants that nation-states support and uphold (Tibbitts, 2015a). Included among an evolving framework of human rights standards are civil and political rights; social, economic, and cultural rights; and recently, environmental and collective rights. The normative content of HRE focuses on (a) developing values, attitudes, and beliefs that support and reinforce human rights; (b) defending and advancing human rights through behavior and action. For example, values and principles of action that are consistent with human rights include, but are not limited to, equal respect for every child; freedom from violence; respect for language, culture, and religion (Tibbitts, 2015a). While an accepted part of the school curriculum in many countries, HRE is often included without rationale as to why human rights exist or should be taught (Meyers, Bromley, & Ramirez, 2010). The United States is a representative example of curricular inclusion without an explanation. By 2016, 42 states integrated human rights content in social studies, often on a limited basis with educators teaching human rights from historical approaches; however, absent from instruction is a focus on skills, attitudes, or application in contemporary society (Tibbitts, 2015b). HRE’s emphasis on rights and responsibilities of people, universal norms and legal structures, has the potential to align with traditional and more active approaches of civic education. However, in the U.S. many barriers present an uncertain future for full inclusion of HRE including lack of understanding about human rights; dearth of teacher-training opportunities; limited space in school curriculum; idea of American exceptionalism and the belief that HRE is not needed (Sirota, 2017). Meyers, J. W., Bromley, P., & Ramirez, F. O. (2010). Human rights in social science textbooks Cross national analyses, 1970–2008. Sociology of Education, 83(2), 111–134. Sirota, S. (2017). The inconsistent past and uncertain future of human rights education in the United States. Prospects, 47(1–2), 101–117. Tibbitts, F. (2015a). Building a human rights education movement in the United States. In S. Katz & A. Spero (Eds.), Bringing human rights education to US classrooms (pp. 3–14). Palgrave Macmillan. Tibbitts, F. (2015b). Human rights education here and now: United States practices and international processes. Journal of International Social Studies, 4(2), 129–134.

The Language of Social Studies Education

73

Indigenous Self-Determination and Sovereignty centers on the unique status that indigenous peoples hold as citizens of indigenous nations with sovereign rights, including the power of self-determination in their affairs. One notable absence in the citizenship education scholarship and discourse is the treatment of indigenous self-determination and sovereignty (Sabzalian, 2019a, 2019b) and indigenous citizenship, rights, and nationhood (Rains, 2003; Rains & Swisher, 1999; Sabzalian & Shear, 2018). As it stands, indigenous peoples in the United States are framed as racial/ethnic minorities or as identity groups (Banks, 2008) rather than by their unique status as citizens of indigenous nations within the geopolitical construct of the nation-state. The work of Sabzalian (2019b) offers excellent insights to address this gap; she argues citizenship education must explicitly counter the contemporary legacy of colonialism and affirm Indigenous sovereignty. For educators, knowledge ”about land, treaty rights, sovereignty, trust relationships, and responsibilities – should be seen as central to democratic citizenship education and educating an informed citizenry” (p. 169, original emphasis). Rains, F. V. (2003). To greet the dawn with open eyes: American Indians, White privilege and the power of residual guilt in social studies. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives on social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum (pp. 199–227). Information Age. Rains, F. V., & Swisher, K. G. (1999). Authentic voices: Advice for incorporating American Indians and Alaska Natives in the elementary school curriculum. Social Education, 63(1), 46–50. Sabzalian, L. (2019a). Indigenous children’s survivance in public schools (Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education). Routledge Education. Sabzalian, L. (2019b). The tensions between Indigenous sovereignty and multicultural citizenship education: Toward an anticolonial approach to civic education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 47(3), 311–346. Sabzalian, L., & Shear, S. (2018). Confronting colonial blindness in civics education: Recognizing colonization, self-determination, and sovereignty as core knowledge for elementary social studies teacher education. In S. B. Shear, C. M. Tschida, E. Bellows, L. B. Buchanan, & E. E. Saylor (Eds.), (Re)Imagining elementary social studies: A controversial issues reader (pp. 153– 176). Information Age.

74

Endacott and Kopish

International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) seeks to assess how “young people are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens” in 38 countries (Kerr et al., 2010, p. 11). Initiated in 2006, the ICCS project offered two reports: The International Civics and Citizenship Education Study of 2009 (ICCS:09: Schulz et al. 2010) and the 2016 administration of the ICCS study (Schulz et al., 2017). As summarized by Knowles, Torney-Purta, and Barber (2018), The study addressed research questions about changes in content knowledge since 1999, students’ interest in engaging in public and political life, perceptions of threats to civil society, the features of educational systems and classrooms related to civic and citizenship outcomes, and aspects of students’ backgrounds. (p. 20) Although similar to CivEd, the ICCS employed more contemporary approaches to measure subject-matter knowledge. The ICCS includes three dimensions: (1) a content dimension which specifies subject matter within civics and citizenship; (2) an affective behavioral dimension which measures students’ civic perceptions and civic activities; and (3) a cognitive dimension that assesses students’ thinking processes (Schultz et al., 2008). Together, the ICCS explores research questions focused on student achievement, dispositions to civic engagement, and attitudes related to civic and citizenship education. Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, W., & Burge, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 European Report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary students in 24 European countries. IEA. Knowles, R. T., Torney-Purta, J., & Barber, C. (2018). Enhancing citizenship learning with international comparative research: Analyses of IEA civic education datasets. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 7. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 international report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Schulz, W., Ainley, Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., & Friedman, T. (2017). Becoming citizens in a changing world: The international civic and citizenship education study 2016 international report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

The Language of Social Studies Education

75

National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics is a federally funded study that assesses students’ civic knowledge and skills. The goal of the study is to “show how well American students are being prepared for citizenship in our constitutional democracy” (National Assessment Governing Board, 2010, p. vi). NAEP – Civics assessments measure students’ understanding through multiple-choice and open-response questions. At the most basic level, some questions assess students’ factual knowledge. Many questions, however, require higher-order thinking, such as asking students to analyze or interpret images and texts. While NAEP – Civics Assessment provides achievement data for a nationally representative sample of students in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade, scholars caution the overall scores do not give an objective picture of how well students perform (Levine, 2013; Levinson, 2010). For one, because the NAEP – Civics Assessment is a paper-and-pencil test, it does not provide information about students’ ability to work collaboratively, engage in discussions, or communicate effectively through writing or oral presentation. Two, the content questions of the NAEP focus heavily on knowledge, particularly knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Three, civic participation and civic engagement are explicit outcomes stated in the Civic Mission of Schools and many state standards, but NAEP does not directly measure these. Finally, the knowledge and skills tested on NAEP – Civics tend to reflect values associated with more advantaged backgrounds. Despite these limitations, NAEP – Civics results do offer critical data for stakeholders in civic education. Levine (2013) argues that the NAEP – Civics Assessment can be used to learn which students perform well, how students’ knowledge changes over time, which educational practices are related to higher student achievement, and how well students understand specific topics. Levine, P. (2013). What the NAEP civics assessment measures and how students perform. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement (pp. 331–361). John Wiley & Sons. National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Civics framework for the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education.

76

Endacott and Kopish

National Assessment of Education Progress in Economics is a standardized measurement that assesses students’ economic understanding of market economies, national economies, and international economies. In 2006, the National Center for Educational Statistics added economics as a NAEP test (NAEP-E). The NAEP-E differed from other tests because it was limited to students in grade 12. The NAEP-E is the largest and most generalizable assessment of students’ economic undertaking in the U.S. The NAEP-E measures and reports results from three main content areas: (1) the Market Economy – addresses how individuals and businesses make economic choices as buyers and sellers in the marketplace (45% of exam content), (2) the National Economy – examines overall conditions in the U.S. economy (40%), and (3) the International Economy – explores how national economies interact with one another (15%) (NCES, 2013, p. 4). With the three content areas of economics, NAEP-E questions were designed to assess students across three cognitive domains: knowing, applying, and reasoning; each domain is detailed below: Knowing asks students to identify and recall information and to recognize economics terms and concepts. Applying requires students to describe or explain the relationship between information and economic concepts. Reasoning measures students’ ability to use information and economic concepts accurately to solve problems, evaluate issues, and interpret situations. (NCES, 2013, p. 4) Heafner et al. (2019) provide the most comprehensive set of findings related to NAEP-E scores. Their research revealed persistent gender, racial, and schoollevel achievement gaps as schools with predominantly Black and Hispanic students who attend high poverty, low performing schools are disadvantaged in economics preparation. Furthermore, critical to the success of student achievement in economics is the type of economic course taken, level of literacy skills, participation in the Stock Market Game, and outside of school exposure to local, US, and international economics and personal finance. Heafner, T. L., VanFossen, P. J., & Fitchett, P. G. (2019). Predictors of students‫ ׳‬achievement on NAEP Economics: A multilevel model. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 43(4), 327–341. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The Nation’s Report Card: Economics 2012 (NCES 2013 453). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

The Language of Social Studies Education

77

National History Standards were a set of content and skills based standards that sought to bring first and second-order historical concepts together into a single set of voluntary national standards. The National History Standards (NHS) were developed by the National Center for History in the Schools in 199 and included separate disciplinary standards for historical thinking including (1) Chronological Thinking, (2) Historical Comprehension, (3) Historical Analysis and Interpretation, (4) Historical Research Capabilities, and (5) Historical Issues-Analysis and Decision-Making. This list of specific skills was a lot less controversial than the debate sparked by the historical content contained within the standards, which was described as “influenced by contemporary socio-cultural historical scholarship that challenged traditional conceptions of the nation’s history” (Symcox & Wilschut, 2002, p. 3). In opposition to the National History Standards, Cheney (1994) wrote that the proposed standards represented “The end of history” since, among other concerns, “not a single one of the 31 standards mentions the Constitution” (n.p.). The controversy illustrated the tension between an approach to history education where students learn a “highly selective, sentimental, sanitized versions of American history [that represents] a severely simplified vision of how we came to the society we are now,” and one that “reveals the blemishes, leaves rough edges intact, and eschews cosmetics” (VanSledright, 2008, p. 121). The U.S. Senate passed a resolution denouncing the National History Standards with a vote of 99–1. The lone dissenter objected to the resolution based on the belief that the resolution did not go far enough in its denouncement of the standards. Since academic standards are inherently political documents, the inclusion of specific historical content in the NHS likely set them up for failure before they were ever even considered. Cheney, L. (1994, October 20). The end of history. Wall Street Journal. http://www.trinityhistory.org/ AmH/Cheney_WST.pdf Kammen, M. (1989). History is our heritage: The past in contemporary American culture. In P. Gagnon (Ed.), Historical literacy: The case for history in American education (pp. 138–156). Houghton Mifflin. National Council for History Education. (1996). National Standards for history. National Council for History Education. Symcox, L., & Wilschut, A. (2002). National History Standards: The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history. Information Age Publishing. VanSledright, B. A. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge, and school history education. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 109–146.

78

Endacott and Kopish

National Standards for Civics and Government are voluntary standards that seek to “help schools develop competent and responsible citizens who possess a reasoned commitment to the fundamental values and principles that are essential to the preservation and improvement of American constitutional democracy” (Center for Civic Education, 1994, p. 9). First published in response to the Goals 2000 Act in 1994, the Center for Civic Education developed the National Standards for Civics and Government. In addition to guiding state- and school-level content standards that specify what K-12 students should know and do in the fields of civics and government, the NAEP Civics Assessment Framework draws heavily on the National Standards for Civics and Government. The document is organized into three sections by grade bands: K-4, 5–8, and 9–12. Five overarching guiding questions comprise each grade band: (1) What are civic life, politics, and government? (2) What are the foundations of the American political system? (3) How does the government established by the Constitution embody the purposes, values, and principles of American democracy? (4) What is the relationship of the United States to other nations and to world affairs? (5) What are the roles of citizens in American democracy? The language and discourse within guidance documents are neither benign nor neutral. Therefore, the National Standards for Civics and Government communicate values and perspectives that are subject to criticism. For example, in a content analysis of the standards, Gonzales, Riedel, Avery, and Sullivan (2001) found concepts associated with traditional liberalism (i.e., citizens’ rights and freedoms) far outnumber concepts associated with classical republicanism (i.e., civic virtue, the reciprocal relations between citizens’ rights and their responsibilities for the public good). In addition, the researchers found the standards do little to reflect the contributions of women and people of color to civic or public life. Finally, the concept of civic participation is limited in the overall number of references and prioritized at later grade levels (Ross, 2001). Center for Civic Education. (1994). National Standards for Civics and Government. Center for Civic Education. Gonzales, M. H., Riedel, E., Avery, P. G., & Sullivan, J. L. (2001). Rights and obligations in civic education: A content analysis of the National Standards for Civics and Government. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29(1), 109–128. Ross, E. W. (Ed.). (2001). The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities. SUNY Press.

The Language of Social Studies Education

79

National Standards for Financial Literacy are a voluntary set of standards that guide school administrators, teachers, curriculum developers, and other stakeholders tasked with teaching financial literacy. Following the unveiling of the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics in 2010, the Council for Economic Education (2013) introduced the National Standards for Financial Literacy (NSFL). The literature traces several factors related to the development of the NSFL (CEE, 2013). For example, ­Bosshardt and Walstad (2014) cited the 2008 financial crisis as a rationale for more financial literacy. Over the previous decade, prominent economic educators were already calling for more research into students’ macroeconomic reasoning and, thus, a shift towards financial literacy (Miller & VanFossen, 2008). Like the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics, several scholars offer critiques of the NSFL. Davies (2006) and Arthur (2012), for example, question the reduction of economic education to teaching students how to be good consumers. It disregards the need to educate students about the role of citizens, choices democratic societies make about the economy, and financial regulatory structures. Similarly, Maier, Figart and Nelson (2014) point out that NSFL focuses on individual choices and omits macroeconomic and structural solutions. They question the underlying assumptions in the six standards and recommend teaching about the broader context that informs financial decisions, including the role of government, labor, non-profits, income distribution, and corporate power. Arthur, C. (2012). Consumers or critical citizens? Financial literacy education and freedom. Critical Education, 3(6), 1–24. Bosshardt, W., & Walstad, W. B. (2014). National standards for financial literacy: rationale and content. The Journal of Economic Education, 45(1), 63–70. Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2013). National Standards for financial literacy. CEE. Davies, P. (2006). Educating citizens for changing economies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 15–30. Maier, M. H., Figart, D. M., & Nelson, J. A. (2014). Proposed national standards for financial literacy: What’s in? What’s out? Social Education, 78, 77–79. Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (2008). Recent research on the teaching and learning of pre-collegiate economics. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 284–300). Routledge.

80

Endacott and Kopish

News Media Literacy Education focuses on teaching students to critically assess information garnered from a variety of traditional and social media sources to evaluate issues and reach reasoned conclusions. Attention given to news media literacy in social studies education is a relatively new phenomenon. Yet, young people spend large amounts of time online, are deluged with unreliable information, and struggle to reason and reach warranted conclusions about social and political information on the internet (McGrew, Ortega, Breakstone, & Wineburg, 2016). While the antidote to these problems remains elusive, there are some starting points for civic educators. The Stanford History Education Group, for example, identified three competencies for civic online reasoning: (1) identifying who’s presenting the information, (2) evaluating the evidence presented, and (3) investigating what other sources say (McGrew, Ortega, Breakstone, & Wineburg, 2016, p. 5). In addition, Kellner and Share’s (2007) critical media literacy framework offers teachers a helpful tool for engaging students in critical analysis of media information. While these frameworks serve as helpful tools to develop young peoples’ news media literacy, Kahne and Bowyer (2016) offer a clear warning: Without the capacity for and the commitment to the accurate assessment of truth claims regarding controversial political issues, the links between rigorous thought and evidence on the one hand and democratic deliberation and informed policymaking on the other are severely compromised. (p. 29) In a highly partisan and polarized civic and political time, news media literacy is critically essential in civic education. Specifically, widespread acceptance and circulation of misinformation undermine civic reasoning abilities, decision-making, and potential for engaged citizenship in participatory democracy (Kahne & Bowyer, 2016). Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2016). Educating for democracy in a partisan age. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3–34. Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education. In D. Macedo & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 3–23). Peter Lang. McGrew, S., Ortega, T., Breakstone, J., & Wineburg, S. (2017). The challenge that’s bigger than fake news: Civic reasoning in a social media environment. American Educator, 41(3), 4–10.

The Language of Social Studies Education

81

Physical Geography is the study of the interactions between the Earth’s surface, climate system, and natural features such as landscapes, oceans, plants, animals, and people (Holden, 2011; Mayhew, 2004). Physical geography examines the process and formation of physical change and growth across the surface of the earth in the past and present day. The authors of the College, Career, and Civic Life Frameworks (NCSS, 2013) define physical systems as A collection of entities that are linked and inter-related in a stable structure. In geography, an ecosystem is a physical system of major interest. An ecosystem is made up of living organisms and other components, along with their environment, including air, water and soils. (p. 109) Holden (2011) offers five key aspects of the study of physical geography: atmosphere weather and climate systems; the carbon cycle and historic and contemporary climate change; plate tectonics, weathering, erosion, and soils; the role of water and ice in shaping the landscape and impacting human activity; – the patterns of plant and animal life and human impacts upon them.

– – – –

The emphasis on the physical phenomena of the planet distinguishes physical geography from the other geographic branches of human geography and environmental geography (Butt, 2000). As such, the studies of the climate, soils, ecosystems, and biospheres are critical to this branch of geography (Todd, 2012). Physical geography identifies and explains the features of the earth as it is and as it was which makes it a highly relevant subject of examination for society and the processes that effect our daily lives (Holden, 2011). Butt, G. (2000). The Continuum guide to geography education. Continuum. Holden, J. (2011). Physical geography. Routledge. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography. Oxford University Press. Todd, R. (2012). Geography education. In W. B. Russell (Ed.), Contemporary social studies: An essential reader (p. 144). Information Age Publishing.

82

Endacott and Kopish

PISA Financial Literacy Assessment is the first large-scale, comparative, international study to assess the financial literacy of young people. In 1997, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) developed an internationally agreed upon assessment framework of student achievement known as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA introduced the first financial literacy assessment in 2012, followed by assessments in 2015 and 2018. The PISA Financial Literacy Assessment organizes domains of content (knowledge and understanding), process (mental strategies and approaches), and contexts (situations in which students apply domain knowledge, skills, and understanding). Specifically, the content areas of knowledge and understanding include money and transactions, planning and managing finances, risk and reward, and financial landscape. In terms of process, mental strategies and approaches, PISA outline four process categories: identify financial information, analyze information in a financial context, evaluate financial issues and apply financial knowledge and understanding. Contexts identified in the PISA financial literacy assessment include education and work, home and family, individual and societal. In addition, the financial literacy framework assesses non-cognitive factors (e.g., motivation and confidence and attitudes) such as access to information and education, access to money and financial products, attitudes towards and confidence about financial matters, and spending and saving behavior (OECD, 2013, pp. 147–159). U.S. students typically score at mean levels in overall performance with scores that are not statistically different from OECD countries on overall performance. Among U.S. students, however, there was a high proportion of variation in students’ performance explained by socioeconomic status and family wealth. Some scholars have criticized the PISA Financial Literacy Assessment for not requiring reasoning and judgment on legal frameworks of financial markets nor economic understanding of how markets work or conditions in which they fail (Arthur, 2016; Retzmann & Seeber, 2016). Arthur, C. (2016). Financial literacy education as a public pedagogy: Consumerizing economic insecurity, ethics and democracy. In C. Aprea et al. (Eds.), International handbook of financial literacy. Springer. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. Retzmann, T., & Seeber, G. (2016). Financial education in general education schools: A competence model. In C. Aprea et al. (Eds.), International handbook of financial literacy. Springer.

The Language of Social Studies Education

83

Place is a geographical concept that describes a geographical context by its location, material setting, peoples, social relations, and the subjective meanings derived by individuals and groups. Place is a concept that is not unique to geography, and even though it is used daily, it is a difficult concept to describe because its meaning is generally considered to be common sense (Cresswell, 2014). The seemingly simple nature of place as a concept can keep us from thinking more deeply about it Think of the ways place is used in everyday speech. “Would you like to come round to my place?” This suggests ownership or some kind of connection between a person and a particular location or building. It also suggests a notion of privacy and belonging. “My place” is not “your place” – you and I have different places … Place is everywhere. This makes it different from other terms in geography like “territory,” which announces itself as a specialized term, or “landscape” which is not a word that permeates through our everyday encounters. So what is this “place”? (p. 7) Political geographer John Agnew (1987) outlined three fundamental aspects of place – location, locale, and sense of place. – Location: Places have specific absolute, relative, or relational locations. – Locale: The material setting in which people and social relations exist is considered to be the locale of a place. – Sense of place: Humans make subjective meanings of places that can be individual or social and differ from person to person or group to group. Place is a way of understanding the world and places can evoke positive and emotions or feelings (Cresswell, 2006). Real places around the world are portrayed in media, thereby helping us develop a sense of place even if we have not been there. Works of fiction also rely heavily on developing a sense of place for the reader, even if the location doesn’t actually exist. People can have different senses of place for the same location depending on their personal experience (or lack thereof) with that place. This can lead to public disagreement over how that space is represented or portrayed. This is often the case with contested spaces such as historical sites. Cresswell, T. (2006). Sense of place. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 424–425). Sage. Cresswell, T. (2014). Place: A short introduction. Wiley & Sons.

84

Endacott and Kopish

Political Geography represents phenomena within politically defined spaces (e.g., borders, boundaries, political regions, divisions, resources, etc.) as well as the expression of political ideals and power across a given geographic space (Butt, 2000; Mayhew, 2004). Political geography is primarily concerned with territory and territoriality, which serve as defining concepts because they draw together notions of power and space as humans employ territoriality while claiming, defending, and contesting territorial spaces (Cox, 2008). Political geographers therefore focus on concepts related political entities, such as the nation state, and the territory they control, include, and exclude. Contemporary political geography examines the spatiality of states, geopolitics, the geographies of political and social movements, and the politics of identities (Webster, 2006). Specific attention is given to the ways geography is divided to aid or obstruct political events, as well as its impact on political identities and behaviors. Globally speaking, political geography examines the geopolitical divisions, disputes, and delineations of resources and the planet itself by humans and nations; at its most granular, it can be used to explain, predict, or influence the voting patterns of a particular neighborhood. Political geography is inherently interdisciplinary in nature: it can involve political science, history, international relations, and sociology, among others. Butt, G. (2000). The Continuum guide to geography education. Continuum. Cox, K. R. (2008). Political geography: Territory, state, and society. Blackwell. Mayhew, S. (2004). A dictionary of geography. Oxford University Press. Webster, G. (2006). Political geography. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 118–124). Sage.

The Language of Social Studies Education

85

Politics of Scale are the political considerations that enter into deliberations on geographic scale as well as the manner in which power differentials influence representations of geographic scale. Scale is a spatial level of analysis that operates through social, economic, political, biological, and ecological processes (Graddy, 2011). Despite the fact that scale is often portrayed as a fixed concept based on spatial magnitude, it is also viewed by many scholars as being political in nature. For example, when discussing globalization, one might consider how global cultural values and norms impact those held by nations, communities, or individuals (Zhu, 2019). Considering issues on a global scale holds implications for the local scale and vice-versa. Scales are collectively organized and do not exist in isolation (Graddy, 2011). In a sense, a single scalar category lacks meaning without other scales to provide perspective. One of the most easily recognizable scalar hierarchies is the categorization of human habitation into towns, cities, counties, states, and nation-states. Taken a step further, we categorize nation-states by using regions and continents, which in turn are frequently thought of within their respective hemispheres. The politics of scale also contends with the ways in which power frames scalar categorization, binding systems together into top-down hierarchies. Those seeking to disrupt this top-heavy orientation hold up “local” scalar articulations as one way to reclaim representation based on self-description. However, other geographers argue that entire hierarchical system of scale should be deconstructed and reconstructed based on geographic and social theory (Smith, 1992). Graddy, G. (2011). Politics of Scale. In D. Mulvaney & P. Robbins (Eds.), Green politics: An A-to-Z guide (pp. 329–331). Sage. Smith, N. (1992). Geography, difference and the politics of scale. In J. Doherty, E. Graham, & M. Malek (Eds.), Postmodernism and the social sciences. Macmillan. Zhu, Y. (2019). Politics of scale: Cultural heritage in China. In T. Lähdesmäki, S. Thomas, & Y. Zhu (Eds.), Politics of scale (pp. 21–35). Berghahn Books.

86

Endacott and Kopish

School Climate Reform is the process of improving a school’s structures and culture to promote self-expression, positive social-emotional relationships, and democratic ways of thinking and acting. School climate reform is considered one of the complementary, proven practices in civic education (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017). Equity and justice for young people are often the impetus for school climate reform efforts and can take many forms and address the harmful effects of school policies and practices in multiple contexts. One way to improve the overall climate of schools is to adopt features of democratic schools. Trafford (2008) argues democratic schools foster a democratic ethos and climate for self-expression and exploration of multiple viewpoints, provide structures and opportunities for students to voice opinions, and encourage student leadership. These features foster and honor student voice, and a body of literature suggests youth need opportunities to influence issues that matter to them (Pittman et al., 2000), actively engage in problem-solving (Fielding, 2001), develop closer and more meaningful connections with adults and with peers (Mitra, 2005), and assume more active classroom roles (Costello et al., 2000). However, this school ideal is embedded with a host of cultural assumptions and is often not the reality for marginalized youth. The civic reality is that marginalized youth experience misaligns with the spaces and practices constructed in schools (Ginwright et al., 2005). Costello, J., Toles, M., Spielberger, J., & Wynn, J. (2000). History, ideology and structure shape the organizations that shape youth. In N. Jaffe (Ed.), Youth development: Issues, challenges, and directions (pp. 185–231). Public/ Private Ventures. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 123–141. Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J., & Noguera, P. (2005). Youth, social justice, and communities: Toward a theory of urban youth policy. Social Justice, 32(3 (101)), 24–40. Mitra, D. L. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher relationships. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 289–304. Pittman, K., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2000). Youth as effective citizens: Background report and recommendations. International Youth Foundation. Trafford, B. (2008). Democratic schools: Towards a definition. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. L. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 410–423). Sage.

The Language of Social Studies Education

87

Schools Council History Project was an educational initiative in the United Kingdom that shifted the teaching and learning of history away from the transmission of historical facts to historical interpretation and understanding. In 1972, the Schools History Project sought to transform students in the United Kingdom from receptacles of historical fact into processors of historical evidence with an “emphasis on the logical, rational elements in historical study” (Barton & Levstik, 2004, p. 70). The changes meant: (1) greater focus on interpretation, which lent importance to the individual’s role in evaluating history (Lee, 1984); (2) students were to think like historians, and the exceptionality of history as a way of knowing was stressed (Booth, 1983); (3) history was increasingly viewed as explanatory in nature with an emphasis on the creation of historical analogies as frames of reference that depended upon the individual’s interpretation (Lee, 1984); (4) students were expected to apply deductive logic to the historical evidence they studied (Shemilt, 1984); (5) knowing “how” history happened rather than just knowing the events that occurred elevated the roles of causation and use of evidence by students (Rogers, 1984); and (6) emphasis on causation translated to deeper examination and interpretation of the decisions made by historical figures (Boddington, 1984). The instructional focus on procedural concepts and knowledge was codified in the National Curriculum of England and Wales in 1990 (Keirn, 2018) and became a guiding force behind the historical thinking and disciplinary history movement that followed in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada. Boddington, T. (1984). The schools council history 13–16 project. The History and Social Science Teacher, 19(3), 129–137. Booth, M. (1983). Skills, concepts, and attitudes: The development of adolescent children’s historical thinking. History and Theory, 22, 101–117. Keirn, T. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 13–36). John Wiley & Sons. Lee, P. (1984). Why learn history? In A. K. Dickinson, P. J. Lee, & P. J. Rogers (Eds.), Learning history (pp. 1–19). Heinemann. Rogers, P. J. (1984). Why teach history? In A. K. Dickinson, P. J. Lee, & P. J. Rogers (Eds.), Learning history (pp. 21–39). Heinemann. Shemilt, D. (1984). Beauty and the philosopher: Empathy in history and classroom. In A. K. Dickinson, P. J. Lee, & P. J. Rogers (Eds.), Learning history (pp. 39–84). Heinemann.

88

Endacott and Kopish

Service-Learning is a “teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teaching civic responsibility, and strengthen communities” (Seifer & Connors, 2007, p. 4). In 1999, Eyler and Giles reported over 147 definitions of service-learning in the literature; however, the consensus is that academic study, community engagement, and reflection are the three critical attributes of service-learning. The first attribute, academic study, requires aligning the service-learning experience with specific course learning goals and objectives. For the second attribute, community engagement, it is necessary for the service-learning experience to address community-identified priorities and for the community partner to serve as co-educators in the learning process for students. The third attribute, reflection, engage the learner in sense-making of their community engagement experiences connected to the course learning goals. For community engagement experiences to be considered service-learning, they should be aligned with specific course learning goals and objectives. Thus, service-learning applies across multiple disciplines. While there are many possibilities for service-learning, the community engagement experience typically involves one of the following types of engagement: direct, indirect, research, and advocacy. Direct engagement involves learners in person-to-person contact to support a community-driven priority such as cooking/serving/delivering food to people experiencing housing needs. Indirect engagement includes opportunities for learners to meet a clear community need, but with larger benefits to communities such as building low-income housing. Research engagement involves learners collecting and/or analyzing information for public welfare or interest. For this type of engagement, research involves a direct connection with a community-based organization (i.e., analyzing water samples to assist a community partner’s mission to restore a watershed). Finally, advocacy engagement allows learners to lend their voices, writing ability, and other talents toward an issue of public interest, such as lobbying on behalf of a communitydriven issue. Eyler, J., & Giles, D., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? Jossey-Bass. Seifer, S. D., & Connors, K. (2007). Faculty toolkit for service-learning in higher education. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.

The Language of Social Studies Education

89

Simulations of Democratic Processes engage students in civic learning through the reproduction of real-life democratic contexts that feature civic deliberation, reasoning, judgment, and action. Simulations and games offer young people opportunities to engage in civic learning in ways that are usually impossible in the real world. For example, students can play the role of president of the United States or as cabinet members and engage in informed decision-making processes about historical or contemporary public policy. Simulations of democratic processes are widely applicable in many curricular contexts. School-based examples include but are not limited to debate, deliberation, mock trials, moot court simulations, model constitutional convention, model UN, and model congress. Organizations like Mikva Challenge and Generation Citizen offer various programs to support civic educators and engage students in democratic processes to effect change in schools and their communities. Increasingly, game-based simulations of democratic processes, like those found on iCivics, are among a suite of options for educators. Simulations help develop students’ civic knowledge (i.e., judicial and legislative processes, voting, policymaking) and skills that apply in a variety of contexts (i.e., public speaking, close reading, teamwork, analytical thinking, argue both sides of a topic) (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Gould et al., 2011). In addition, research demonstrates the efficacy of digital or computer-based simulations for civic learning. Specifically, studies of simulations related to video games (Kahne, Middaugh, & Evans, 2009) and iCivics (Blevins, LeCompte, & Wells, 2014) show promising results. Blevins, B., LeCompte, K., & Wells, S. (2014). Citizenship education goes digital. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 38(1), 33–44. Gibson, C., & Levine, P. (2003). The civic mission of schools. Carnegie Corporation of New York and The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Gould, J., Jamieson, K. H., Levine, P., McConnell, T., & Smith, D. B. (2011). Guardian of democracy: The civic mission of schools. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civic of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved June 8, 2021, from https://www. civxnow.org/sites/default/files/resources/2011%20Guardian%20of%20Democracy.pdf Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Evans, C. (2009). The civic potential of video games. The MIT Press.

90

Endacott and Kopish

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions (CASEL, 2021a). Positive social and emotional skills are among the core building blocks of healthy civic development and are essential for participation in civic life. Levine and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2017) acknowledge this and include social and emotional learning as a new practice of civic learning. SEL programs delivered in school settings contribute to developing competencies and skills that support students’ entire developmental process (­Wallender et al., 2020). CASEL (2021b) has identified five competencies of SEL that include: (1) self-awareness (e.g. identifying personal assets and emotions, examining prejudices and bias, and developing interests and a sense of purpose); (2) self-management (e.g., effectively regulating emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in different situations; setting goals); (3) social awareness (e.g., demonstrating empathy and concern for others, understanding social and ethical behavioral norms and identifying unjust ones, and recognizing available resources, supports, and influences on behavior); (4) relationship skills (e.g., establishing and maintaining healthy relationships, communicating well with others, negotiating conflict, and seeking and offering help when needed, standing up for the rights of others); and (5) responsible decision-making (e.g., critical thinking, making constructive choices and reasoned judgments, evaluating consequences of actions, and considering the well-being of self and others). The development of social and emotional competencies complements civic competencies (i.e., civic skills, civic dispositions, civic identity, civic efficacy, civic agency). CASEL. (2021a). SEL is … Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://casel.org/what-is-sel/ CASEL. (2021b). SEL: What are the core competence areas and where are they promoted? Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://casel.org/sel-framework/ Levine, P., & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2017). The republic is (still) at risk – and civics is part of the solution. Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University. https://www.civxnow.org/ sites/default/files/resources/SummitWhitePaper.pdf Wallender, J., Hiebel, A. L., PeQueen, C. V., & Kain, M. A. (2020). Effects of an explicit curriculum on social-emotional competency in elementary and middle school students. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 86(3), 32–43.

The Language of Social Studies Education

91

Social Studies Education is the integrated study of social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence among young people for a democratic society. Scholars in the U.S. generally consider social studies introduction to the American school curriculum results from the 1916 report of the National Education Association’s Committee on Social Studies. International scholars, however, trace the origins of social studies beyond U.S. borders and different periods (Mufalo et al., 2021; Saxe, 1991). While it is beyond the scope of this entry to settle the origin debate, it does signify a history of tension and conflict defining the meaning and purpose of social studies education (Evans, 2004). As Nelson (2001) argues, “Defining social studies is not an easy task; it is encumbered by a confounding history, conflicting conceptual ideas, and strong ideological divergence in both political and educational philosophy” (p. 15). A year after the social studies American curricular initiation, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) formed to advocate for social studies education. As the flagship organization in the long history of social studies, the NCSS offers the following definition: Social studies is the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. Within the school program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences. The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. The NCSS definition bridges two historical aspects of social studies education. On the one hand is the view of social studies education as an umbrella concept for history, geography, economics, and civics; on the other is that social studies embody social and civic aspects of schooling and learning. Thornton (2008) labeled these two approaches as social studies for social science and social studies for social education. Scholars and educators who view social studies for social science offer perspectives of social studies focused on domain-specific concepts, knowledge, and strategies of unique discipline (i.e., history, geography, economics, and civics). Among those who view social studies for social education, civic and democratic teaching is central to social

92

Endacott and Kopish

studies’ goals and outcomes of preparing young people for civic participation (Castro & Knowles, 2015). Issues of curriculum, pedagogy, and citizenship continue to be sources of tension and conflict in the meaning and purpose of social studies (Levstik & Tyson, 2008; Manfra & Bolick, 2017; Shaver, 1991). In the context of social studies, conflicts and tensions between the relative emphasis on the transmission of the cultural heritage of the dominant society or the development of critical thought to interrogate and critique issues of power, discourse, notions of ‘truth,’ representation, and identity. Social studies is a mixed history, predominantly conservative in its purposes but also at times incorporating progressive and even radical purposes (Ross, 2001). Castro, A. J., & Knowles, R. T. (2015). Social studies education. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the social & behavioural sciences (2nd ed., pp. 727–734). Elsevier. Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? Teachers College Press. Levstik, L., & Tyson, C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research in social studies education. Routledge. Manfra, M., & Bolick, C. (Eds.). (2017). The Wiley handbook of social studies research. Wiley. Mufalo, S. M., Muleya, G., & Simui, F. (2021). Exploring the global emergence of social studies at junior secondary school: A glance on literature. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, V(VII), 694–703. National Council for the Social Studies. (n.d.). About National Council for the Social Studies. https://www.socialstudies.org/about Nelson, J. L. (2001). Defining social studies. In W. B. Stanley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 15–38). Information Age Publishing. Ross, E. W. (Ed.). (2001). The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (Rev. ed.). State University of New York Press. Saxe, D. W. (1991). Social studies in schools: A history of the early years. State University of New York Press. Shaver, J. P. (1991). Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning. Macmillan. Thornton, S. J. (2008). Continuity and change in social studies curriculum. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 15–32). Routledge.

The Language of Social Studies Education

93

Sociocultural History a pluralist orientation to democratic education that emphasizes reasoned judgment, powers of critical appraisal, an expanded view of humanity, and deliberation over the common good (Barton & Levstik, 2004). Sociocultural history views humanity as situated in history and culture, which makes inquiry into the past heavily dependent on these contexts. Such an approach eschews grand narratives of explanation for diverse social histories that focus on social practice and people’s lived experiences across time and space (Endacott, Dingler, & O’Brien, 2020). Sociocultural history education seeks to unveil realities from the past that have been diluted or omitted from the historical record, thereby opening new doors to analysis and opportunities to respond morally (Levstik, 2001). History educators using this approach expect students to grapple with difficult issues, develop informed ideals and beliefs, and turn them into democratic actions with a pluralist notion of the common good in mind (Bickmore, 2008). The belief that pro-social civic actions are the real outcomes that history educators seek to achieve is no small difference. If one is teaching history for the purpose of simply compiling historical knowledge for use in an undetermined future democratic choice, then questions about preferred historical knowledge and the learner’s relationship with that knowledge are different than if one purposefully seeks to use knowledge to engender democratic actions in response to a specific issue or question. (Endacott, Dingler, & O’Brien, 2020, p. 552) Much like disciplinary history, the historical investigator embodies the instrument of analysis. However, the sociocultural orientation also considers how history has played out with respect to the common good. (Endacott et al., 2020). Barton and Levstik (2004) outline four stances towards history education in the sociocultural tradition that include: – Identification: Students should be encouraged to develop personal connections with the past and narratives from the past because it helps them feel, think, and act as members of a larger historical community – Analytic: Students should examine the causes and consequences of past events, work to understand the past to use it in the present, and explore the ways that narratives are used in society – Moral Response: Students should develop moral judgments about the past and use those responses for purposes such as remembrance, condemnation, admiration, and activism towards the common good

94

Endacott and Kopish

– Exhibition: Students should display their knowledge about the past through exhibition of historical information to help others make judgments and deliberate on the common good. Moral responses including remembrance, admiration and condemnation are important aspects of historical study (Barton & Levstik, 2004) and we should expect our students to come to grips with difficult issues and turn them into democratic actions, not merely ideals or beliefs (Bickmore, 2008). Sociocultural history assumes that all human activity is situated in history and culture, which means history education should look beyond just the concepts or procedural knowledge of the discipline and focus on the actions of people in the concrete settings of society (Endacott et al., 2020). Therefore, history does not need a grand narrative of overarching explanation because individuals have their own diverse social histories, which is interpreted through daily experiences in life, family, stories, pictures, and artifacts (Levstik & Barton, 2001). Sociocultural history also recognizes the repression of some histories over time and that some historical evidence, events, and individuals therefore need to be purposefully sought after (Endacott et al., 2020). Historical significance is determined as much by the realities of the past that have been repressed in the historical record as the events that have been reported, codified, and elucidated (Levstik, 2001). Revealing the repressed historical record opens new doors to analysis and opportunities to respond morally. Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bickmore, K. (2008). Social justice and the social studies. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 155–171). Routledge. Endacott, J., Dingler, M., & O’Brien, J. (2020). To what purpose? The ends and means of history education in the modern world. In C. W. Berg & T. M. Christou (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of history and social studies education (pp. 541–573). Springer International Publishing. Levstik, L. S. (2001). Articulating the silences: Teachers’ and adolescents’ conceptions of historical significance. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history (pp. 284–305). NYU Press. Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2001). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools (2nd ed.). Erlbaum Associates.

The Language of Social Studies Education

95

Space is a geographic concept concerned with the representation and organization of everything around us, including relationships between objects or phenomena themselves. The way geographers have defined and operationalized space over the years has shifted with changes to scientific paradigms and social contexts (Kuhlke, 2006). The iterative nature of our understanding of space as a concept is the product of considerable academic debate, which has been described as, “a series of highly problematic temporary settlements that divide and connect things up into different kinds of collectives which are slowly provided with the means which render them durable and sustainable” (Thrift, 2003, p. 95). Despite these scholarly disagreements, there are three core conceptualizations of space that are considered by social studies educators. Absolute Space Space was originally conceived of as an absolute, fixed container that held people and objects within it (Elden, 2009). Space was understood as having fixed dimensions and everything within was governed by a geometrical system of organization (Kitchin, 2009). This arrangement was considered “natural, given and essential, and spatial processes were teleological and measurable” (p. 269). These ideas were largely popularized by Richard Hartshorne, who published The Nature of Geography in 1939. As a discipline, Geography sought to understand the integration of people and within space (Kuhlke, 2006). As such, the focus of study was the arrangement of these phenomena, with emphasis placed on the phenomena themselves rather than the nature of the logic behind their organization. Geographers described the arrangement of people, objects and phenomena within space, paying no attention to the organizing principles, laws, and forces behind those arrangements. Relative Space The quantitative revolution of the 1950’s led geographers to seek a more scientific view of space (Kuhlke, 2006). With a focus on the scientific method, geographers focused on concepts such as distance, pattern, and position. Space was no longer considered to be an empty container, but as one filled with objects and relationships between objects (Elden, 2009). Space itself was only what was between the objects within it, an idea that challenged the fixed geometric model of absolute space. Relative space is all about laws and geometric patterns, while social and historical forces behind objects and entities “disappeared from the analysis entirely” (Elden, 2009, p. 442).

96

Endacott and Kopish

Relational Space In the 1970’s, critical geographers 1970’s argued that geographic structures and processes were interrelated and inseparable (Kulhke, 2006). This idea, coined by the philosopher Henri Lefebvre as “production of space” held that social systems create the structures that form relations within space. This relational space was, “contingent and active, as something that is produced or constructed by people through social relations and practices. Space is not an absolute geometric container in which social and economic life takes place, rather it is constitutive of such relations” (Kitchin, 2009, p. 268). In this view, space is viewed as “relational” because objects only exist as they relate to other objects, and space itself is created by these interrelations (Elden, 2009). As such, space becomes plural instead of singular in nature. There are multiple spaces created by the relationships between multiple objects, and since the social processes that form these structures are always changing, so does space itself. Ideological and socioeconomic processes (especially capitalism) are considered distinctly spatial in a relational sense because they influence spatial practices, representations of space and spaces of representation (Kitchin, 2009). Spatial practices are the processes and actions that occur and can be perceived, while representations of space are the tangible manifestations of our efforts to record and organize these spatial relations (e.g., maps, video, photographs, books, etc.). Critical geographers argue that these human-created products should be appraised and contested since they are the product of ideological processes. As an example, consider how regions such as the Middle East, or the Global South are representative of a predominantly western and/ or colonial perspective on organizing the globe. Finally, spaces of representation are the spaces that people produce and exist in daily. These spaces often stand in contrast to the broader spaces around them that were organized and labeled by another authority or group. Elden, S. (2009). Space I. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 262–267). Elsevier. Kitchin, R. (2009). Space II. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 268–275). Elsevier. Kuhlke, O. (2006). Space, human geography and. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 441–446). Sage. Thrift, N. (2003). Space: the fundamental stuff in human geography. In N. Clifford, S. Holloway, S. Rice, & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key concepts in geography (pp. 95–107). Sage.

The Language of Social Studies Education

97

Spatial Thinking can be defined as an amalgam of the three geographic elements of space, tools of representation, and processes of reasoning (National Research Council, 2006). Concepts of space are the conceptual and analytical framework for processing spatial data such as numbers, text, or geographic facts. Representations (also see entry this volume) give form to geographic information for analysis and communication. Reasoning processes involve the organization, analysis, interpretation, and communication of structured geographic information. Spatial reasoning processes are complex, and similar to other reasoning processes in social studies education (e.g., historical reasoning/thinking) lack consensus definition. Spatial reasoning includes concepts or constructs such as “spatial ability, spatial reasoning, spatial cognition, spatial concepts, spatial intelligence, environmental cognition, cognitive mapping, and mental maps” (National Research Council, 2006, p. 25). Spatial thinking serves three purposes and manifests within three contexts. The three purposes of spatial thinking include: “(1) a descriptive function, capturing, preserving, and conveying the appearances of and relations among objects; (2) an analytic function, enabling an understanding of the structure of objects; and (3) an inferential function, generating answers to questions about the evolution and function of objects” (p. 30). These purposes are served within three contexts for spatial thinking. The first context is our everyday physical world that involves spatial relationships between ourselves and the environment. The second context involves a sense of scale or understanding of the “nature, structure, and function of phenomena that range from the microscopic to the astronomical scales” (p. 28). For example, the distance from Los Angeles to New York seems quite vast until it is compared to the circumference of the Earth, which then could be compared to the distance between the Earth and moon, etc. The third and final context for spatial thinking is more abstract because it pertains to the ways in which we conceive of spatial relationships in our minds, or “the conversion of some data relationship between objects – for example, similarity or dissimilarity, order or sequence, time of appearance – into locations and therefore arrangements of the objects in a space” (p. 30). In simpler terms, organizing subjects or objects in our minds using some form of spatial arrangement based on characteristics we deem meaningful. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially. The National Academies Press.

98

Endacott and Kopish

Student Participation in School Governance is a proven practice of civic learning that involves the fostering of democratic practices through students’ participation in the governance of their schools. Schools provide students formal structures for modeling democratic practices, considering students’ views and ideas, and teaching students civic skills. Student councils can foster practical civic learning experiences and engage many students. In 2017, this practice was renamed student voice in schools (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017) to reflect the importance of students’ ability to influence the climate of policies of their schools. This change prioritizes that all young people are entitled to be seen, heard, and respected as citizens of the school community and have a voice in decision-making that affects their lives and well-being. Student voice often involves school reform efforts at the organizational and classroom level (Mitra, Seirriere, & Kirshner, 2014). For example, research demonstrates student voice initiatives can lead to positive organizational, curricular, and staff development outcomes (Mitra, 2004). Increasing student voice also offers opportunities for students to re-engage in the school community and become more attached to their schools (Mitra, 2004). Mitra’s (2005) pyramid of student voice is a three-level framework of youth development opportunities as student voice increases in schools. Beginning at the bottom is ‘being heard’ and represents school personnel listening to students to learn about their school experiences. The next level, ‘collaborating with adults,’ describes how young people can work with adults to make changes in the school. The top of the pyramid is ‘building capacity for leadership,’ which involves youth sharing in the leadership of the student voice initiative. By engaging in practices that foster student participation and honor student voice, young people develop civic skills and dispositions and equip themselves for civic engagement beyond their time in schools. Levine, P., & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2017). The republic is (still) at risk – and civics is part of the solution. Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University. https://www.civxnow.org/ sites/default/files/resources/SummitWhitePaper.pdf Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing ‘‘student voice’’ in schools lead to gains in youth development. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651–688. Mitra, D. L. (2005). Increasing student voice and moving toward youth leadership. Prevention Researcher, 13(1), 7–10. Mitra, D. L., Serriere, S., & Kirshner, B. (2014). Youth participation in US contexts: Student voice without a national mandate. Children & Society, 28(4), 292–304.

The Language of Social Studies Education

99

Test of Economic Literacy (TEL) is a nationally administered, norm-referenced, standardized test used to measure the economic content knowledge of high school students and adults. The original inspiration for the TEL resulted from the National Task Force on Economic Education report in 1961 (Stalnacker et al., 1964). Currently, in its fourth iteration (Walstad et al., 2013), the TEL consists of two test versions, each with 45 multiple choice questions aligned to the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics (Council of Economic Education, 2010). Most of what scholars know about students’ and teachers’ economic knowledge directly results from quantitative research data from pre-and post-test results from the Test of Economic Literacy (Walstad, 1992). Despite the predominance and influence of the TEL in shaping the economic education literature, numerous scholars also levy critiques. For example, Becker, Greene, and Rosen (1990) formally critiqued the TEL for the guessing nature of the instrument and questioned the reliability of its use as a norm-referenced test to evaluate student and teacher understanding of knowledge given the nature of the standards, to which it is aligned, are criterion-referenced. Nelson and Sheffrin (1991) expressed concern that the TEL is biased for its “pronounced ideological slant” and “microeconomics of laissez-faire” (p. 158). Additionally, scholars acknowledge difficulties interpreting results from single assessment instruments such as multiple-choice tests (Reich, 2013) and argue for alternative measures that account for knowledge and understandings of economic ideology (Sanders, 2012). Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2010). Voluntary national content standards in economics (2nd ed.). https://www.councilforeconed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/voluntary-­ national-content-standards-2010.pdf Nelson, J. A., & Sheffrin, S. M. (1991). Economic literacy or economic ideology? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(3), 157–165. Reich, G. A. (2013). Imperfect models, imperfect conclusions: An exploratory study of multiple-choice tests and historical knowledge. Journal of Social Studies Research, 37(1), 3–16. Saunders, P. (2012). A history of economic education. In G. Hoyt & K. McGoldrick (Eds.), International handbook on teaching and learning economics (pp. 3–31). Edward Elgar. Stalnaker, J. M., et al. (1964). Test of economic understanding. Science Research Associates, Inc. Walstad, W. B., Rebeck, K., & Butters, R. B. (2013). Test of economic literacy (4th ed.). National Council on Economic Education.

100

Endacott and Kopish

Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics guides school districts, curriculum developers, teachers, and stakeholders who influence economic education policy (Council for Economic Education, 2010). First published in 1997, the Council of Economic Education (CEE) offered a second edition of the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics in 2010. Both versions of the publication follow a similar format which consists of 20 economic concepts and benchmarks for grades 4, 8, and 12 that “an economically literate student should know and a statement of what the student should be able to do (2010, p. v). Specifically, the 20 economic concepts articulated as content standards include scarcity, decision-making, allocation, incentives, trade, specialization, markets and prices, role of prices, competition and market structure, institutions, money and inflation, interest rates, income, entrepreneurship, economic growth, role of government and market failure, government failure, economic fluctuations, unemployment and inflation, and fiscal and monetary policy. In economic education, the Voluntary Standards are ubiquitous. They are the basis of almost all state economic education standards (MacDonald & Siegfried, 2012) and influence most classroom teachers responsible for implementing economic education (Khayum et al., 2006). The Voluntary Standards are the “de facto definition of economic literacy” in the United States (Miller & VanFossen, 2008, p. 288), and various critiques exist from multiple stakeholders. Economists, for example, question how the Voluntary Standards and neoclassical perspectives embodied in the standards help students understand social issues (Marglin, 2012). Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2010). Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics. CEE. Khayum, M., Valentine, G. P., & Friesner, D. (2006). A response of high school teachers to the adoption of state economic standards. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 7(2), 47–72. MacDonald, R. A., & Siegfried, J. J. (2012). Refreshing the voluntary national content standards in economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 43(3), 308–314. Marglin, S. A. (2012). Saving the children – A rant. The Journal of Economic Education, 43(3), 283–292. Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (2008). Recent research on the teaching and learning of pre-collegiate economics. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 284–300). Routledge.

The Language of Social Studies Education

101

Youth-Adult Partnership is a working relationship fostered between students and adults that emphasizes deliberation, collective action, and social justice when considering community issues. Integrating cross-disciplinary scholarship from human development, community psychology, and civic engagement, youth-adult partnership (Y-AP) is an active ingredient of positive youth and civic development. Y-AP is the practice of (a) multiple youth and multiple adults deliberating and acting together, (b) in a collective [democratic] fashion, (c) over a sustained period of time, (d) through shared work, (e) intended to promote social justice, strengthen an organization and/or affirmatively address a community issue (Zeldin, ­Christens, & Powers, 2013, p. 388). This definition helps distinguish Y-AP from other types of youth-adult interactions. It encompasses youth engaging with multiple adults instead of models like mentorship or apprenticeship in which youth interact with one adult (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005). Zeldin, Christens, and Powers (2013) identify four core elements for Y-AP: authentic decision making, natural mentors, reciprocity, and community connectedness. Authentic decision making refers to fostering youth voice and ensuring youth actively participate in the center of decision-making processes. Natural mentors are represented in Y-APs through young people’s interactions with multiple adults, some of whom might be community leaders or organizers, youth workers, civil servants, among other adult partners or allies willing to work collaboratively with youth (Camino, 2000). Reciprocal activity refers to Y-APs as spaces that foster co-learning, grounded in the principle of mutuality. Y-APs foster community connectedness through a web of networks that provide opportunities to access social capital and develop authentic relationships for young people. Y-APs provide young people scaffolding as adults proffer knowledge and skills from their own experiences while integrating young people in decision-making processes, giving them a voice in the matters and policies that impact their lives. Camino, L. (2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 11–20. Hamilton, M. A., & Hamilton, S. F. (2005). Work and service. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 348–363). Sage. Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. L. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 385–397.

102

Endacott and Kopish

Youth Organizing presents young people with equitable and empowering opportunities for civic engagement and activism to critique and address social inequalities and injustices impacting their lives. Youth organizing provides opportunities for students to engage civically to address issues related to their lives. The Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing defines youth organizing as, “Grounded in racial, gender, and economic justice, youth organizing is the process of engaging young people in building power for systemic change while supporting individual and collective development (Valladares et al., 2021, p. 8). Thus, youth organizing focuses on the values and interests of the youth of color, low-income youth, girls, and queer and trans youth. Historically, quality civic education programs and opportunities disenfranchise the same young people. Understood as part of positive youth development, youth organizing groups form to address various issues characterized by three common features. First, social justice values guide campaigns that seek to develop power among young people to change oppressive systems, institutions, or policies (Warren et al., 2006). Second, young people often lead organizing groups, focus campaigns on the concerns of young people, and mobilize participants as agents of change (Delgado & Staples, 2007). Third, groups often form based on shared experiences with systemic oppression found in policies based on social identities (i.e., race, ethnicity, class, national origin, gender, sexuality) (HoSang, 2006). Youth organizing, like other approaches to active participation, seeks to achieve important civic outcomes with young people. However, it is vital to make some critical distinctions. For one, youth organizing often occurs outside of school-based contexts though groups may address school-based issues. Service-learning, by contrast, is an approach to civic engagement that requires an alignment of community engagement activities to meet course learning objectives and outcomes. A second distinction is that youth organizing is a form of political education driven to shift power dynamics and create systemic change. Undergirded by critical theory, youth organizing centers youth knowledge and experience, both epistemologically and pedagogically, to advance projects through various means and methods decided by the local context. This approach differs from action civics which engages young people through an established, systemic inquiry to action process and may be influenced by the political climate, particularly if enacted in schools. Historically, youth organizing builds on a long legacy of movements, campaigns, and actions that seek to create justice and equity (Valladares et al., 2021). From labor, suffrage, and abolition in the 19th century to 20th-century

The Language of Social Studies Education

103

movements for civil rights, young people continue to push and sustain social change. Racist policies affecting young people in the 1980s and 1990s (i.e., inadequate school funding, zero tolerance) inspired a resurgence of youth activism, particularly among young people of color. During the early 2000s, youth organizing networks formed at a national level as movements transformed into 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and grew dramatically through technologies, which empowered youth organizing groups to move beyond local issues to engage in state, regional, and national movements. Some examples include but are not limited to: police shootings (e.g., Black Lives Matter), climate justice (e.g., Climate Change Movement), native rights (e.g., new Red Power Movement), school to prison pipeline (e.g., Police-Free Schools Movement), and violence in schools (e.g., Never Again March), undocumented students (e.g., Know Your Rights). Present-day youth organizing focuses on building political power by forming multigenerational coalitions (i.e., Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools, Journey for Justice) and youth-led coalitions (i.e., Alliance for Education Justice, United We Dream, and Youth Everywhere Rising and Resisting). The growth of youth organizing groups in the United States provides opportunities for greater inclusion of marginalized young people in civic and political life that schools alone often miss. Through youth organizing, young people are developing knowledge of how political contexts and social settings influence their development and how to leverage individual and collective power to affect change in their communities (Kwon, 2013; Kirshner, 2015). Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2007). Youth-led community organizing: Theory and action. University Press. HoSang, D. (2006). Beyond policy: Ideology, race and the reimagining of youth. In S. Ginwright, P. Noguera, & J. Cammarota (Eds.), Beyond resistance: Youth activism and community change (pp. 3–19). Routledge. Kirshner. (2015). Youth activism in an era of education inequality. New York University Press. Kwon, S. A. (2013). Uncivil youth: Race, activism, and affirmative governmentality. Duke University Press. Valladares, S., Valladares, M. R., Garcia, M., Baca, K., Kirshner, B., Terriquez, V., Sanchez, J., & Kroehle, K. (2021). 20 years of youth power: The 2020 national youth organizing field scan. https://fcyo.org/uploads/resources/20-years-of-youth-power-the-2020-national-youthorganizing-field-scan_resource_609d4a85ebe152ee0283274e.pdf Warren, M. R., Mira, M., & Nikundiwe, T. (2008). Youth organizing: From youth development to school reform. New Directions for Youth Development, 117, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/ yd.245

104

Endacott and Kopish

Youth Participatory Action Research engages young people in research inquiries in a variety of contexts to critically examine issues related to their identities, communities, and valued outcomes. YPAR is a catalytic, youth-led inquiry that seeks to influence the lives of young people through action. The centering of youth distinguishes YPAR from other participatory action research (PAR) traditions. YPAR occurs in various settings – schools, out-of-school contexts in communities, alternative educational settings – though it tends to be in areas where the voices of youth have not historically been privileged. School-based YPAR focuses on school-based issues and school reform (Rubin & Jones, 2007; Schultz, 2008), whereas out-of-school research often attends to larger societal issues (Fox et al., 2010). In practice, YPAR engages young people in various qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and research designs that “interrogate the conditions of oppression and surface leverage points for resistance and change” (Fine, 2008, p. 215). As a critical-epistemological approach that draws on epistemologies of resistance and learning, YPAR employs appropriate methods that draw on community narratives toward a goal of “co-creating student-initiated intervention or action programs that promote community well-being” (McIntyre, 2000, p. 129). YPAR responds to oppressive, unjust, and inequitable conditions experienced by young people such as discrimination, racism, poverty, under-resourced schools, and threats of violence (Fine, Torre et al., 2004; McIntyre, 2000). YPAR projects position young people as agents of change and have been enacted in areas including, but not limited to, racial injustice, educational inequality, school reform and students’ critical literacy experiences. Fine, M. (2008). An epilogue, of sorts. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 213–234). Routledge. Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Boudin, K., Bowen, I., Clark, J., Hylton, D., & Upegui, D. (2004). Participatory action research: From within and beyond prison bars. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Working method: Research and social justice (pp. 95–120). Routledge. McIntyre, A. (2000). Constructing meaning about violence, school, and community: Participatory action research with urban youth. The Urban Review, 32, 123–154. Rubin, B. C. (2007). “There’s still not justice”: Youth civic identity development amid distinct school and community contexts. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 449–481. Schultz, B. D. (2008). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an urban classroom. Teachers College Press.

The Language of Social Studies Education

105

Youth Voice involves respect for the ideas and opinions held by youths, consideration for outcomes valued by youths, and youth ownership of change processes. At the most fundamental level, youth voice refers to respecting youth for their ideas, opinions, and contributions and having the freedom and opportunities for expression within organizations and groups (Mueller, Wunrow, & Einspruch, 2000). Youth voice is not simply about expression; instead, it is about recognition by powerful people and inclusion during consequential decision-making processes that affect their lives. Direct, authentic involvement in decision-making and reform processes is a powerful way to develop youth voice for young people. Collaborative efforts, such as youth-adult partnerships, foster the development of youth voice by enabling young people to share responsibility for decision-making, developing projects, and taking on leadership roles to implement change efforts (Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2013). Youth voice initiatives strengthen student ownership of change processes, which can increase youth civic engagement and foster the belief that young people can make a difference in their own lives and the lives of others (Kirshner, O’Donoghue, & McLaughlin, 2003; Mitra, 2007). Youth voice is associated with positive youth development outcomes. Broadly defined, positive youth development is a unifying philosophy characterized by a positive, asset-building orientation that builds on youth’s strengths rather than categorizing them by their deficits (Small & Memmo, 2004). Kirshner, B., O’Donoghue, J. L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (2003). New directions for youth development: Youth participation improving institutions and communities. Jossey Bass. Mitra, D. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727–744). Springer. Mueller, R. B., Wunrow, J. J., & Einspruch, E. L. (2000). Providing youth services through youthadult partnerships: A review of the literature. Reaching Today’s Youth, 4, 37–48. Small, S., & Memmo, M. (2004). Contemporary models of youth development and problem prevention: Toward an integration of terms, concepts, and models. Family Relations, 53(1), 3–11. Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. L. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 385–397.

APPENDIX A

Social Studies Organizations American Bar Association The American Bar Association is a national organization representative of the legal profession. While the ABA programs, services, and resources address many aspects of law for professionals, law schools, and the public, their Division for Public Education plays a critical role in advancing public understanding of law and society for educators and students. The Division for Public Education seeks to educate about civic responsibilities, the law, the courts, and the legal system; empower teachers with resources for K-12 curricula and engage students through resources and learning experiences. The ABA Division for Public Education organizes annual events such as Law Day and programs such as Summer Institute for Teachers and the Civics and Law Academy. In addition, Insights on Law and Society is published multiple times a year and provides analysis of legal issues and lesson ideas for teachers of civics, government, and law-related education programs. American Historical Association The American Historical Association is a professional organization serving historians in all fields and professions and as an advocate of history education. Recent advocacy work included collaborating with the National Council for the Social Studies to develop the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. Within the AHA is its Teaching Division, which seeks to advance history education at all levels through its development and procurement of teaching resources, including classroom materials, history courses, and electronic materials such as audiovisual resources and webinars. Association of American Geographers The Association of American Geographers seeks to strengthen the role of geography education by providing students, educators, and practitioners with resources to promote the learning and teaching of geography. Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools The Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools is a coalition of national civic learning, education, civic engagement, and business groups with the common interest of improving civic education in America’s schools. Formed to implement the recommendations of a report on the Civic Mission of Schools,

108

APPENDIX A

this coalition advocates through national and state tracks for civic education within schools and among legislators, educational administrators, and local communities. Center for Civic Education The Center for Civic Education is an organization that develops curricular materials, offers professional development, and advocates for stronger civic education. Its mission focuses on helping students increase their understanding of tenets of constitutional democracy, develop citizenship skills, and use democratic procedures for decision making and conflict management. The Center fulfills its mission through programs such as We the People, The Citizen and the Constitution, Project Citizen, and Civitas International Programs. Constitutional Rights Foundation The Constitutional Rights Foundation is an organization that seeks to inspire lifelong civic engagement for teachers and youth through interactive programs and resources. Programs from the Foundation focus on Civics, Law, and Government (e.g., Mock Trial, Project LEAD) and Leadership and Civic Participation (e.g., Civic Action Project, Expanding Horizons Institute). The Foundation also develops and provides curricular resources for teachers and students in civics and history from the elementary level through Advanced Placement courses at the high school level. Council for Economic Education The Council for Economic Education (CEE) is an organization whose mission focuses on K-12 students and their development of knowledge of personal finance and economics in order to make better economic decisions. Ways that the CEE accomplishes its mission are through the development of curriculum and instructional materials, standards including the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics and National Standards for Financial Literacy, assessment (e.g., Test of Economic Literacy), and advocacy and policy (e.g., Survey of the States). National Council for Geographic Education The National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE) is an organization chartered to enhance the status and quality of geography teaching and learning. In order to achieve its mission, the NCGE provides professional development opportunities for teachers, produces journals and geography-related publications, develops and distributes curricular materials to support teachers, and advocates for geography in schools.

Social Studies Organizations

109

National Council for History Education The National Council for History Education (NCHE) is a leading organization committed to teaching, learning, and appreciating diverse histories. Through webinars, videos and podcasts, curricular programs, and other initiatives, the NCHE offers professional learning opportunities for educators. The NCHE promotes historical thinking through an approach entitled History’s Habits of Mind and provides history educators with curated lists of history education resources and other classroom materials. National Council for the Social Studies The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) is the preeminent professional association for social studies education and serves elementary, secondary, and college teachers of social studies disciplines. Through its mission, the NCSS provides leadership, services, and support to educators to build capacity for high-quality social studies and advocacy for social studies education. From developing national standards and professional development opportunities to publishing journals and resources, the NCSS reaches a national and global audience. National Geographic Society The National Geographic Society is a global non-profit organization committed to exploring change globally. Perhaps best known for its flagship journal National Geographic, this organization offers various programs and resources for youth and educators that foster knowledge and practices to protect and sustain oceans, land, wildlife, history and cultures, and human ingenuity. National History Day National History Day (NHD) is a competition that originated at Case Western Reserve University in the 1970s. NHD is a year-long academic program that focuses on historical research, interpretation and creative expression among middle and secondary students. The competition involves participants developing and presenting historical projects (e.g., documentaries, exhibits, papers, performances, websites) at local and state competitions based on a yearly theme. Winners of the competition at each level advance to the national contest held every year in June. Street Law, Inc. Street Law, Inc. seeks to advance justice through classroom and community education about law and government through its programs and teaching materials. Types of programs offered by Street Law, Inc. include teacher professional

110

APPENDIX A

development, legal community partnerships, legal life skills, international programs, and the development of curricula and teaching materials. World History Association The World History Association (WHA) is a professional association of scholars, teachers, and students to promote world history. Playing a central role in shaping world history education, the WHA contributed to the development of world history standards and the Advanced Placement World History course and exam design.

H

E

L

A

N

G

U

A

G

E

O

F

E

D

U

C

A T

I

O

N

The Language of Social Studies Education An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts Jason L. Endacott and Michael A. Kopish Social studies is a discipline unique to K-12 education and tasked with the preparation of democratic citizens. Social studies educators work with concepts, theories, and ideas from multiple disciplines across the social sciences and humanities, which makes discourse through shared language complex. Specialization in content areas that comprise the social studies can further complicate shared understanding of essential terms.

The Language of Social Studies Education

T

The Language of Social Studies Education offfers essential information for key concepts organized to reflect the contemporary context of K-12 social studies education. The concepts found within this volume reflect the breadth of the discipline while also providing the foundational knowledge needed to develop deeper understanding. Each entry is based on multiple sources that invite the reader to pursue their interests through further inquiry.

Cover illustration: iStock.com/Trifonov_Evgeniy

Jason L. Endacott and Michael A. Kopish

Michael A. Kopish, Ph.D. (2011), University of Wisconsin-Madison, is Associate Professor of Teacher Education at Ohio University. He is an author or co-author of book chapters and peer-reviewed articles on service learning, global citizenship education, and teacher preparation.

H

E

L

A

N

G

U

A

G

E

O

F

E

D

U

C

A T

I

O

The Language of Social Studies Education An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts Jason L. Endacott and Michael A. Kopish

This book will appeal to those who are looking for concise information based on respected scholarship from disciplines across the social studies. Even seasoned social studies practitioners will fijind its entries helpful for incorporating new concepts, ideas, and approaches into their discourses on citizenship education.

Jason L. Endacott, Ph.D. (2007), University of Kansas, is Associate Professor of Secondary Social Studies Education at the University of Arkansas. His scholarship focuses on epistemologies of history education and students’ engagement in historical empathy.

T

ISBN 978-90-04-54694-3

ISSN 2666-0121 TLOE 3

Spine

N