EdConf Prague 2010

Changingthe social studies (textbooks)

by design based researchJana Stará*, Michaela Dvořáková**

Dominik Dvořák***

Charles University in Prague

Faculty of Education

* Dept. of Primary Education

** Dept. Of Civics

*** IRDE

Outline

1. The recent Czech curricular reform and its impact on the model of social studies.

2. What is worth changing in Czech primary social studies.

3. How do teachers interpret and implement the new textbooks.

Primary social studies

In the Czech curriculum since the beginnig of the 20th century as Vlastivěda (patriotic studies)

Modelled after the German Heimatkunde

Education for partiotism

Austria-Hungary (till 1918)Studies of the homeland: • Homeland geography and

key events of national history.

• Building the national identity and loyalty to the state.

Independent Czechoslovakia

While the loyalty now belonged to the new state and new political systém.

Despite the reform efforts, the concept of social studies did not changed substantially.

Social studies under Communist rule

In 1970s and 1980s modernisation of curriculum.Accent on geography and on practical skills (paramilitary training was a top priority).Despite the ideology, there were some pozitive moments: reduction of content, elaborated methodology, some research behind the textbooks…

• Aim: „Goodthinking“ citizen in Orwellian sense

• Political instruction expanded – Socialist state and its institutions.

• Selected chapters from history portray the changes of life after the Communist party assumed the power.

Social studies after 1989:A return to patriotism?

• Ideologized historical chapters replaced by an outline of the whole Czech history from prehistoric ages to contemporary history

• European integration spread the horizon of geography further into the Europe.

• But in fact, it is a return to original„patriotic“ model.

• Parallel „small history“ and „small geography“

Case of primary history

• A lot of facts.• The relationship between the primary social

studies and the (lower) secondary history not clear.

• Framework curricular documents gradually left out the historical facts.

• Textbooks and teachers still feel obliged to transmit a „full picture of Czech nation‘s past“ without a reflected selection.

The Czech curricular reformKey moment: 2007

National curricular framework (RVP – Rámcový vzdělávací program) stressing the key (generic) competences and cross-curricular topics.

Mandatory SBCD -- Curriculum development should become an integral part of every teachers’ professional role.

Schools had been given approx. 2 years to develop their curricula2007 – all Basic schools – school curricula at grades 1 and 6

National curricular frameworksExample: History in the primary school

Before 2007

List of 6 to 12 periods.

12 or more names, some curricula dates.

Conceptualy political history.

Now

No periods listed.

No names or dates listed.

Social history or local history could replace the political history.

Multiple case study of five elementary schools

and their new curricula• First experiences suggest that the scope and sequence of

subject matter do not differ considerably in individual school curricula.

• Most teachers simply copied the old curriculum into the new framework.

• Commercially produced textbooks remain an important factor influencing the teaching and learning in the basic school.

Our attempt: Design-based research

• To design an artefact (series of 5 textbooks) that could facilitate the change in educational reality

• During the process of writting the textbooks to collect the feedback on the actual use of the books

Given we know the intention of the authors,

to gain deeper knowledge of the differences between the intended and enacted curriculum

To learn more about the potential of the book to change the actual instruction.

Our intention in the textbooks

• Training of skills (? Develop competencies)

• More cross-subject connections within the social studies

• Important generalizations on social life

• Example: How to teach about family.

Textbook pages:

The families are differerent

Conflicts are normal

Part of DBR: research of enacted curriculum (case of 3

teachers)• What meanings teachers product from textbooks? - How teachers interpret suggestions of textbook and

teacher‘s manual accompanying the textbook? - What is the fidelity of enacted curriculum? - What learning experiences are offered to students

by teachers?

Methodology:

Videotaping the the unit on family taught „according to the book“.

One unit (3 lessons) about family (projected in a teacher‘s manual accompanying the textbook) taught by 3 teachers = altogether 9 lessons.

• Interviews with teachers.• Qualitative analysis of transcripts of lessons and

the interviews.

Intended curriculum

• Students (Grade 2) learn how to ask questions, interview adults and record data

• Students actively debate with a representative of grandparents‘ generation in the class

• Teacher offer an opportunity to intergenerational discussion and cooperation on the production of family tree to the families of students

Intended vs. enacted curriculum• Intention: • Students ask questions,

interview adults and record data

• Enacted curriculum:• Teachers A and C: ask

questions by themselves, children answer them (direct teaching)

• Teacher B: follows intended curriculum

Intended vs. enacted curriculum• Intention:

• Students actively debate with a representative of grandparents‘ generation in the class

• Enacted curriculum:

• Teachers A and C: no grantparent came to school, instead of that teacher explained how was the life 50 years ago (direct teaching)

• Teacher B: followed intended curriculum

Reasons given by teachers why they followed (or not) the textbookA: „ I asked children to invite any grandma or

grandpa into the class, but nobody from grandparents was interested in it…“

B: „ It was not any problem, I know I can ask for it… I have great experience with grandparents and parents in the class…“

C: „ I haven't known that it is intended. Even I knew it I wouldn't invite grandparents… It is complicated and not so important…“

Intended vs. enacted curriculum• Intention:

• Teacher offersan opportunity to intergenerational discussion and cooperation during the production of family tree to the families

• Enacted curriculum:

• Teachers A, C: did not assign the homework (creating a family tree with parents at home); drilled the genealogical relations much more than recommended;

• Teacher C assigned the individual task (at the classroom) to create student‘s own family tree

• Teacher B: followed the intended curriculum

Reasons given by teachers why they followed (or not) the textbook

A: „I was afraid of it. There could be children from divorced families…“

B: „I didn‘t make changes [to the suggested activities]. I think it is very important that children would discuss and learn something about family from parents, not from me. Parents didn‘t have problems with this assignment, they explain a lot of things to children …

C: „It is easier to do it in the class. It is necessary not to present [the actual composition of the family] as an [problematic] issue. Children must accent it as fact -- You have a father, I do not…“

How do teachers reflect the changes they did?

A: „I forgot some activities but the goals were fulfilled.“

B: „ I appreciate work with this textbook. No changes were necessary.“

C: „I‘ve taught for more than 10 yearsso I already know what the kids need.It is necessary to follow their needs, not to follow blindly the textbook…“

Interpretation

• All teachers believed that they fulfilled the main goals of curricular material

despite the fact • Their interpretation of goals and suggested

activities sometimes differ considerably from the intention of curriculum writers (teachers A and C)

• It is possible to use curricular materials (more of less faithfully) without knowledge or acceptation of their onthologic and epistemological basis

Conclusion

The limited evidence we have collected suggest that in the area of primary social studies:

The freedom given to the teachers by school-based curriculum development did not change the curriculum substantionally.

Nor the carefully devised textbook / curricular project did not facilitated the aims of reform in some cases.