Page 210 - Powerful Social Studies for Elementary Students 4th Edition

182 Powerful Social Studies for Elementary Students
focused their lesson planning. In talking about the satisfactions of teaching, they tended to cite evidence of good student thinking about the content, whereas low-scoring tea- chers tended to talk only about student interest or positive response to lessons.
All teachers felt pressure to cover more content, but high-scoring teachers experi- enced this primarily as external pressure and tended to resist it by favoring depth over breadth. In contrast, low-scoring teachers experienced it primarily as internal pressure and thus emphasized breadth of content coverage over depth of topic development. All teachers mentioned that students are likely to resist higher-order thinking tasks, at least initially, but high-scoring teachers nevertheless emphasized these tasks in their class- rooms. As a result, students described their classes as more difficult and challenging but also as more engaging and interesting.
Finally, thoughtfulness scores were unrelated to prior levels of student achievement, indicating that teachers can structure thoughtful discourse at all achievement levels. Taken together, these findings suggest that thoughtful, in-depth treatment that fosters higher-order thinking about social studies topics is feasible in most classrooms (not just those dominated by high achievers) and that teachers can overcome initial resistance and bring students to the point where they see higher-order thinking activities as more engaging and interesting than lower-order recitation and seatwork.
Fraenkel (1992) drew on case studies of high school social studies classes to identify factors associated with differences in effectiveness. He also found that the major factor determining the success of a class was the teacher, not student achievement levels. Less effective teachers tended to present ideas ready-made rather than to ask students to develop ideas for themselves. They tended to talk to students rather than with them. Often they did not seem to have a clear sense of where they were heading. They tended to engage students in busy work and to stress memorization and regurgitation of facts rather than understanding of ideas. Many did not seem to like what they were doing, to like their students, or to be having much fun. Unsurprisingly, their students rarely were active learners and often caused discipline problems.
In contrast, the more effective teachers often engaged students in discussions. When they did lecture, they combined speech with use of a projector or document camera, or showing pictures, maps, or other visuals. Their questions tended to elicit discussion (not just recitation), and they often asked students to respond to one another’s comments. Students often worked in pairs or small groups while the teacher circulated and inter- acted with them. They were often required to function as active learners by role-playing or giving presentations in class. The teachers made a point of engaging students in activ- ities designed to help them understand and require them to use the ideas they were learning.
These teachers appeared to like what they were doing, like their students, and like their subject matter. They had high expectations for the students, emphasized depth rather than breadth of coverage, were able to explain things clearly using examples that related to the students’ lives, had reasonable wait times and were good listeners when students talked, demonstrated patience when students did not understand initially, varied their instructional approaches and types of activities, and displayed considerable com- mand of their subject and ability to relate it to a variety of daily-life examples.
They also were highly attuned to their students. They encouraged students to take public risks by contributing their opinions to discussions and publicly discussing their mistakes. Yet they were quick to notice indicators of confusion or anxiety and to react by providing additional explanations, alternative assignments, or other scaffolding. They emphasized bringing to light students’ thought processes for public examination and discussion. They maintained personal contacts with their students and arranged for frequent interaction among students through cooperative small-group activities.
Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.