An Instructional Model to Support Problem-Based Historical Inquiry: The Persistent Issues in History Network
Main Article Content
Abstract
For over a decade, we have collaborated with secondary school history teachers in an evolving line of inquiry that applies research-based propositions to the design and testing of a problem-based learning framework and a set of wise practices that represent a professional teaching knowledge base for implementing a particular model of instruction, problem-based historical inquiry (PBHI). PBHI centers history instruction on decision-making about persistent societal problems as they occur in particular historical periods. In order to prepare future teachers to be better able to implement this model in their classrooms, we have integrated components of this model throughout our secondary social studies teacher education program and incorporated a suite of digital tools and resources to facilitate modeling and implementation of PBHI strategies. In an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of our model with pre-service teachers, a scenario-based survey was administered to 120 pre-service social studies teachers to examine their knowledge regarding problem-based historical inquiry (PBHI) teaching strategies. Results of data analysis suggest that pre-service teachers were able to recognize and incorporate core components of the PBHI curricular framework into the scenario-based activity more effectively on the post-survey than on the initial survey. In addition, participants were able to better articulate their reasoning for their instructional choices on the post-survey, and their reasoning tended to align with the core components of PBHI. Implications for the use of scenario-based instruments to measure knowledge of curricular innovations are also discussed.
Article Details
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
Barrett, M., Garrety, K., & Seberry, J. (2006, June). ICT professionals’ perceptions of responsibility for breaches of computer security. Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, Yeppon, Queensland, Australia.
Barrows, H. S. (2002). Is it truly possible to have such a thing as dPBL? Distance Education, 23(1), 119–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910220124026
Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing pre-service social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1).
Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using multimedia-supported learning environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2): Article 3.
Callahan, C., Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2009-10). Educative curriculum materials to develop social studies teachers’ professional teaching knowledge. The International Journal of Social Education, 24(2), 5–33.
Callanan, G. & Perri, D. (2006). Teaching conflict management using a scenario-based approach. The Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 131–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.3.131-139
Cohen, E. G., & Benton, J. (1988). Making groupwork work. American Educator (Fall), 10–17, 45–56.
Cooper, B., Shepardson, D., & Harber, J. (2002). Assessments as teaching and research tools in an environmental problem-solving program for in-service teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 64–71.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 52(2),159–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
Dye, P. & Huffman, L. (2003). National survey of course offerings in social studies, Kindergarten–Grade 12, 2002–2003 survey. Council of State Social Studies Specialists. http://www.cs4online.org/survey.html.
Edwards, S. & Hammer, M. (2006). Laura’s story: Using problem based learning in early childhood and primary teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Educator, 22(4), 465–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.010
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00141
Fram, S. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1–25. Fowler Jr., F. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2008), Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Kiggins, J., & Cambourne, B. (2007). The knowledge building community program: A partnership for progress in teacher education. In T. Townsend & R. Bates. Handbook of Teacher Education (pp. 365–380). Netherlands: Springer.
Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02319858
Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Murray-Harvey, R. & Slee, P. (2000). Problem based learning in teacher education: Just the beginning! Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, December 4–6.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2008). About NCSS. http://www.ncss.org/about/.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Onosko, J. (1991). Barriers to the promotion of higher order thinking in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19(4), 341–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1991.10505646
Patrick, S. (2008). ICT in educational policy in the North American region. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_70
Ravitz, J. (2009). Summarizing findings and looking ahead to a new generation of PBL research. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4–11.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2004). Promoting civic competence through problem-based history learning experiments. In G. E. Hamot, J. J. Patrick & R. S. Leming (Eds.), Civic Learning in Teacher Education: International Perspectives on Educa- tion for Democracy in the Preparation of Teachers (Vol. 3, pp. 123–145). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.
Saye, J. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02505026
Saye, J., Kohlmeier, J.,, Brush, T., Howell, J., & Maddox, L. (2009-2010). Assessing the effects of a teacher education program on pre-service secondary social studies teachers’ instructional decision-making. The International Journal of Social Education, 24(2), 35–76.
Saye, J. & the Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative (SSIRC). (2013). Authentic pedagogy: Its presence in social studies classrooms and relationship to student performance on state-mandated tests. Theory and Research in Social Education, 41(1), 89–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2013.756785
Shaver, J. P. (1996). The prospects of issue-centered education. In D. W. Saxe (Ed.), Handbook on teaching social is- sues (pp. 380–386). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Shaver, J. P., Davis, O. L., & Helburn, S. W. (1979). The status of social studies education: Impressions from three NSF studies. Social Education, 4(3), 150–153.
So, H. & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101–116.
Snow, R. & Bloom, A. (1996). A survey-based pedagogical approach to ethics in the workplace. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1), 89–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886396321006
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strobel, J. & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046
VanSickle, R. L. (1996). Questions of motivation for achieve- ment in social studies. In B. G. Massialas and R. F. Allen, Eds., Crucial issues in teaching social studies K–12 (pp. 81–105). New York: Wadsworth.
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 3(1), 12–43.
Wirkala, C. & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157–1186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419491
Zukas, A. (2000). Active learning, world history, and the Internet: Creating knowledge in the classroom. International Journal of Social Education, 15(1), 62–79.