Planning and developing a social studies

programme: a case for “serious talk” in the

syndicate

Isabel R. Browne

Abstract

An interpretive case study approach was used to investigate teachers’ understanding of the purpose and nature of social studies education and how teachers plan and develop their social studies programme. Data were gathered from eight teachers in a Years 3 and 4 syndicate at a large Auckland primary school through three complementary techniques: observation at syndicate meetings; documentary evidence; and semistructured interviews with four syndicate members. Overall, it was concluded that if teachers are to move beyond the limiting and limited perspective of social studies education that underpins current understanding and programmes, and if students are to experience contemporary, transformative social studies, teachers need opportunities to engage in “serious talk” about what counts as worthwhile social studies knowledge, why it is considered worthwhile, and how it should be taught and learnt.

Introduction

The study reported in this paper has its origins in my experiences as a primary school teacher, and more recently as a teacher educator in the area of social studies education. In particular, it has been motivated by issues that have arisen through my teaching of degree courses in social studies and my professional observation of social studies programmes in primary classrooms. I have noted, for instance, that primary school teachers often have difficulty articulating a clear purpose for and/or a coherent conception of the nature of social studies education, and social studies unit plans sighted during classroom observations have varied markedly in terms of their quality.

The Education Review Office (2001) has identified unit planning in social studies as an area of concern, commenting that “some [primary] teachers lack knowledge and understanding about how to construct a successful [social studies] learning programme” (p. 37). In addition, the topics and content of programmes often fail to address current issues and areas appropriate to social studies education. It has also been noted that teachers seem unaware of the purpose of social studies education (Education Review Office, 2001). More recently, Barr (2005) launched a stinging attack on the quality of social studies programmes, arguing that units of work are boring and pointless because “many teachers don’t know why they are teaching social studies so they don’t know how to teach it” (p. 53).

There have been repeated calls in the literature (see, for example, Sewell, 2001; White, 2000) for teachers’ social studies programmes to incorporate contemporary ideas and practices such as those foreshadowed in Hill’s (1994) “critical affiliation” tradition of social studies education, and Bell’s (1997) “social justice” approach. Attempts to reframe the New Zealand social studies curriculum statement in the early 1990s resulted in public controversy (Openshaw, 2004; Roberts, 1998). The concessions made and compromises reached to appease the range of protagonists resulted in a final curriculum statement awash with “unaddressed tensions and contradictions” (Irwin, 1999, p. 163). Moreover, the statement had neither a coherent rationale for social studies education nor a consistent underpinning philosophy (Openshaw, 2004). It is thus not surprising that teachers’ understanding of the national social studies curriculum statement and their ability to use it to inform the development of class programmes have been identified as areas of concern (Cubitt, 2005; Education Review Office, 2001; Openshaw, 2004). A review of the New Zealand curriculum carried out by the Australian Council for Educational Research concluded “the structure of the achievement objectives [in the social studies curriculum statement] does not provide schools and teachers with sufficient advice to implement programs” (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 4).

The issues outlined above have, singly and collectively, the potential to undermine the planning and development of effective classroom social studies programmes. As such, they have helped to formulate the problem investigated and reported on in this paper: how primary school teachers in New Zealand plan and develop their social studies curriculum. In this article I will argue that if students are to experience contemporary, transformative social studies programmes (Beane & Apple, 1999; Sewell, 2001), teachers need opportunities to engage in “serious talk” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) about what counts as worthwhile social studies knowledge, why it is considered worthwhile, and how it should be taught and learnt. Such matters lie at the heart of curriculum planning and development.

The first section of this paper addresses features and issues associated with social studies education with reference to planning and developing a class-based curriculum. The following sections outline the research method and present the results, along with a discussion in relation to the critical literature.

Social studies education: planning and developing a class-based curriculum

The purpose and nature of social studies education

Two overarching goals or purposes of social studies education are apparent in the literature. The first, preparing students to participate in society as effective citizens, has been acknowledged, both overseas and in New Zealand, as the primary purpose of social studies education (Barr, 1998; Marker & Mehlinger, 1992). What citizenship education actually entails has, however, proved problematic as there “has not been a single dominant view of what it means to be a New Zealand citizen, but rather competing views that have gained ascendancy at particular junctures due to political patronage” (Mutch, 2005, p. 71). The second purpose places emphasis on students developing “the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for understanding the world” (Barr, 1998, p. 110). This purpose is recognised as a means to an end—the development of informed, thoughtful, and confident citizens. Thus the two purposes are interdependent.

The widely cited work of Barr, Barth, and Shermis (1978) details the nature of social studies education with reference to three traditions: citizenship transmission; social science; and reflective inquiry. More recently, Hill (1994) has made a case for a fourth tradition: critical affiliation. This tradition, focused on the development of students’ social and ethical selves, is committed to empowering students for citizenship in a multicultural society where a plurality of values is acknowledged and ethnic awareness valued. Each tradition offers a distinct and coherent view about “what constitutes a good citizen, what that citizen needs to know and the roles of teachers and students in acquiring that important knowledge” (McKay & Gibson, 2004, p. 19).

Transformative social studies programmes

Influenced by the work of critical theorists such as Freire (1972) and Apple (1990), and informed by the notions of critical and liberating literacy, transformative social studies programmes place emphasis on understanding what is, why it is so, the consequences of actions, and consideration of how things might be different and what ought to be. Students are thus encouraged to become “critical readers of their society” (Beane & Apple, 1999, p. 13). When critical literacy is developed as a liberating form of literacy, students are provided with the tools to create new, more powerful cultural forms: to challenge what is and to imagine alternatives rather than rely on the unquestioning acceptance of others’ ideas (Kohli, 2000). Liberating literacy involves students in a process of “conscientisation”, the outcome of which is the development of a critical consciousness (Freire, 1972). Conceived in this manner, critical literacy leads to social decision making and social action: individuals are empowered to become “transformative agents in their world” (Darder, 1991, p. 95). Transformative social studies programmes advocate and promote student agency and social action as desired educational outcomes. The nature of such programmes is detailed in the writings of, for example, Bell (1997), Darder (1991), Hill (1994), Kohli (2000), and Zyngier (2003, 2007).

Planning and developing the class curriculum—a collaborative activity

A major part of a teacher’s professional responsibility is planning or mapping out the nature of the intended curriculum and how it will be put into action. Recent investigations into how teachers plan and develop their class-based curriculum have centred on planning as a collaborative activity. Informed by notions such as distributed and shared cognition, researchers have examined how teams of teachers work together to construct curricula (see, for example, Engestrom, 1994). Studies within this framework have drawn attention to the ways in which teachers jointly construct shared meaning as they engage in mutual activities. It is argued in a number of these studies that teachers, bound together in teams in the pursuit of similar goals and interests, may well constitute and function as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Members of such communities are apprenticed into and share a “discourse” or “way[s] of being in the world: they [discourses] are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (Gee, 1989, pp. 6–7).

In the New Zealand primary school context, teachers are involved in continual cycles of curriculum planning—the planning of overviews for each term, the mapping out of subject-based units, and the planning of day-to-day lessons. When planning and developing units, primary teachers generally work in small groups or syndicates based on similar class levels, where they collaboratively shape national and school requirements for their collective classes (McGee, 1997). To this end, teachers make joint decisions on aspects such as the unit topic, achievement objectives, teaching approaches, learning experiences, resources, and assessment tasks. Syndicates comprising teachers who teach similar class levels are a common organisational feature of New Zealand primary schools (McGee & Taylor, 2001).

Planning and developing a class-based curriculum in social studies

A search of New Zealand literature with reference to planning and developing class curricula in social studies reveals an abundance of either “how to” or “how I/we did it” articles (for example, Dow, 1995; Hunter, Hewitt, Smith, & Taurima, 2002; Ministry of Education, 1998). Despite the presence of such material, primary school teachers still experience difficulties in the planning and development of effective social studies programmes (Dewar, 2000; Education Review Office, 2001; Ministry of Education, 2003).

Although there are no major published empirical studies that specifically examine how New Zealand primary school teachers plan and develop their social studies curricula, planning in social studies was one of the areas addressed by Rosemergy (1997) in her small-scale qualitative study in which she interviewed six New Zealand teachers about their curriculum planning and the factors that affect this process. More recently, Soothill (2004) investigated how teachers at an intermediate school approached “essential learning about New Zealand” (Ministry of Education, 1997) through their social studies programme. The study reported in this article addresses the following questions: What do primary school teachers consider to be the purpose and nature of social studies education? and How do these teachers plan and develop their social studies curricula?

Method

Given the nature of these questions, case study was deemed the most appropriate research strategy. The participating state primary school, a high-decile Auckland school with between 20 and 25 full-time teachers, was selected by criterion purposive sampling (Wellington, 2000). Although all syndicates at the school expressed a willingness to participate, the principal recommended the Years 3 and 4 syndicate because it included the school’s curriculum leader in social studies. Data were gathered through observation, semistructured interviews, and documentary evidence. I negotiated to sit in on two Term 2 syndicate meetings so that I could witness, first-hand, the social studies planning and development processes engaged in during these meetings. Proceedings at these meetings were audiotaped and later transcribed. I also conducted individual semistructured interviews of between 35 and 45 minutes, out of school hours, with four syndicate members: Henry¹ (syndicate leader), Fiona (senior teacher and school curriculum leader in social studies), Tina, and Margie. In addition, copies of the school’s social studies programme documentation were obtained, along with syndicate social studies plans and teachers’ class plans.

Results and discussion

Planning and developing the social studies curriculum

Four stages of planning and development in relation to the social studies curriculum were identified: development of a yearly overview; development of an overview for each term; planning and development of the social studies unit for Term 3; and presentation of the unit plan to the syndicate. Overall, the planning process was described as “a well organised system” (Henry, Int., p. 9)² that “gets the job done a lot more quickly” (Henry, Int., p. 16). The adoption of a rational approach to curriculum planning and development (Print, 1993), an approach characterised by a series of linear and sequential stages, was not entirely unexpected, given its perceived efficiency and the overly hierarchical and structured nature of New Zealand’s national curriculum statements (Elley, 2004).

Use of templates

During his interview, Henry explained how at the end of the previous school year a teacher-only day had been held where each syndicate met to record, on an A4 template, an overview of their programme for the following year. The Years 3 and 4 syndicate decided at their meeting that natural disasters would be the unifying theme for all Term 3 units. As required on the template, the syndicate specified, with reference to the national curriculum statement, the selected social studies strand (place and environment), perspective (current issues), process (values exploration), and setting (the Pacific; New Zealand).

The second stage occurred at a Term 2 syndicate meeting, where the achievement objectives and related learning outcomes of all Term 3 units and the duration of each unit were detailed and recorded on an A4 term overview template. Pairs of teachers were then assigned responsibility for the further development of each unit. Sharing this responsibility among syndicate members was considered by those interviewed as an efficient way to complete professional tasks.

The third stage involved two teachers fleshing out the social studies unit. Once again the school had a template for recording the plan: “we have these formats already on the computer … it’s got all of the requirements that the document [curriculum statement] expects on the cover page, so … we fill in the gaps” (Henry, Int., p. 7).

The first page of the social studies template contained a number of boxes, four of which (settings, perspectives, essential skills, curriculum links) were permanently filled in with choices, and merely required highlighting with reference to each unit. Decisions about the strands, processes, and achievement objectives had been made at earlier meetings and so needed only to be copied from the yearly and term overviews into the appropriate boxes. The remaining boxes required information about the date, year level of the unit, and resources. The second and final page of the unit largely consisted of one large blank area entitled “Learning experiences”.

The use of standardised templates or “generic plans” (Margie, Int., p. 6) was a recurring theme throughout the teachers’ articulations. Henry explained how one of the senior teachers in the school had developed the year and term overview templates as a means of “making sure there was consistency … with formatting so we had a consistent approach [to planning]” (Int., p. 7). The overview and curriculum-specific templates included headings that identified school and national curriculum requirements. They were considered a good way to “cover all of the requirements” (Henry, Int., p. 2). Henry and Fiona, with reference to their respective roles as syndicate and social studies curriculum leaders, and Margie and Tina, all mentioned how these templates were used to check for coverage and compliance:

What we don’t cover this year we will need to cover next year so that sheet [indicating year overview template] just basically has it all on … make sure we have the AOs [achievement objectives] covered and the processes covered … [over a two-year period]. (Fiona, Int., p. 3)

Henry also observed that recording requirements on standardised templates demonstrated to others, including the Education Review Office, that requirements were being addressed.

The templates therefore functioned primarily as accountability tools, providing the senior management team, principal, and Education Review Office with evidence on coverage of the required elements of the social studies curriculum. The use of documentation for this purpose is not unique to this study (see also Rosemergy, 1997; Soothill, 2004) and is linked to bureaucratic and managerial models of accountability. These models “ensure that rules [are] promulgated and compliance with these rules [is] monitored” (Darling-Hammond, 1987, p. 63). Emphasis on filling in boxes on these templates meant that the teachers operated as clerks rather than skilled, educated professionals. Such practices contribute to the deprofessionalisation of teachers (O’Neill, 2004). The role of teachers as functionaries and as highly skilled technicians was a prevalent feature of the syndicate’s discourse and is indicative of the “‘new managerialism’ which now ‘governs’ our education sector” (O’Neill, 2004, p. 40).

Although McGee (1997) has observed that templates help teachers “manage the complexity of planning” (p. 305), they can encourage conformity, suppress the “creative, problem-solving, ‘intelligent’ aspects of planning” (John, 2006, p. 495), and result in teachers failing to draw on the full range of their expertise (Bage, Grosvenor, & Williams, 1999). The headings on the syndicate’s templates not only dictated the scope and nature of their decisions, ensuring that attention was directed to national and school requirements, but also had an effect on the nature of the talk during syndicate meetings. This was particularly apparent during the syndicate meeting held near the end of Term 2, where Margie “distribute[d] the planning along with any supporting resources and … talk[ed] the rest of the team through it to make sure there’s no confusion” (Henry, Int., p. 4). As she read out the headings on the template and outlined the learning experiences in a little more detail, she drew attention to how these experiences linked to the achievement objective(s) [my emphasis]:

Then start with a New Zealand disaster and we’ve suggested the recent Tauranga floods … the focus … is how the disaster has affected people sort of socially and economically in the community … how has it affected the people in Tauranga but how it might have affected people further afield in New Zealand. (Margie, Synd.Mtg,³ pp. 7–8)

Margie also showed resources that could be used to support each learning experience and explained how they might be used. Syndicate members made notes on their copy of the unit plan and occasionally contributed by asking about resources or sharing ideas about additional resources that might be useful: “I found on the Internet, there’s a video on cyclone Heta and so I just need to get someone on the computer to download it” (Teacher, Synd.Mtg, p. 8).

Syndicates comprising teachers who teach similar class levels are noted as sites where teachers engage in a high degree of collaborative curriculum planning and development (McGee & Taylor, 2001). As social entities where teachers are bound together through engagement in a joint enterprise and mutual activities, syndicates have the potential to function as collaborative learning communities. Teachers have opportunities within these communities to “rethink their pedagogy, their conceptions of subject matter, and their role in curriculum development” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1043). The fortnightly meetings of the Years 3 and 4 syndicate provided teachers with a setting where they had an opportunity to discuss the particulars of teaching and learning with reference to their students; share, question, and negotiate planning-related assumptions and practices; and debate what counts as worthwhile social studies knowledge for students. Such matters were not, however, in evidence in either the exchanges between teachers at syndicate meetings or in the teachers’ individual articulations. Instead, the discourse was grounded in technicist, bureaucratic concerns (Darling-Hammond, 1987; O’Neill, 2004). At no stage was there evidence of any substantive or sustained discussion about, for example, the specific social studies understanding students were expected to gain with reference to the overall unit achievement objective: “[s]tudents will demonstrate knowledge and understandings of how people’s activities influence places and the environment and are influenced by them” (S.S. Unit).

Barr (2005) has argued that teachers fail to plan and teach for such “understandings”, even though they are specified in the national curriculum and in teachers’ unit plans. In the case of the Years 3 and 4 syndicate, the unit achievement objective and associated learning outcomes were recorded on the template, and as such, they seemed to be taken as read. For the teachers in this study, having a unit plan with the boxes filled in appeared to be of greater concern than a consideration of what was in that plan.

The purpose and nature of social studies education

The purpose of social studies education

The two purposes of social studies education recorded in the school’s social studies scheme reflected those identified in the literature. Although none of the teachers interviewed made any direct reference to social studies as developing future citizens, Margie did raise a question about the “kind of children [we] are … going to be helping to educate” (Int., p. 12) if social studies were not part of the school curriculum. Tina alluded to the purpose of developing the knowledge, understanding, and skills necessary for understanding the world when she stated, “I guess it’s [social studies] giving children an insight into how people interact and how their interactions affect others” (Int., p. 1), a notion echoed by Margie. To Henry, although social studies has a role to play in developing students’ knowledge, the purpose of this was to “lay the foundations for what they are going to have to know when they get to intermediate and to high school” (Int., p. 1). In contrast, Fiona did not articulate a specific purpose for social studies education beyond the presence of “a curriculum document, one of seven, so it has to be taught within a primary school” (Int., p. 1). Thus, collectively, the teachers articulated no common purpose of social studies education and the purposes articulated bore little direct relationship to those identified in the literature and the school’s scheme.

McGee (1998) and, more recently, Barr (2005) have observed that social studies as a subject taught in New Zealand schools lacks a shared sense of purpose among teachers and a common direction. It is thus not surprising to find that while each of the teachers was able to articulate a reason for teaching social studies, these reasons were idiosyncratic and there was no common understanding about the purpose of social studies education. Moreover, no direct reference was made to citizenship education even though it has been the espoused goal of social studies in New Zealand since the 1940s (Openshaw, 1998).

The failure of teachers to interpret social studies education as preparation for citizenship is not, however, unusual (Marker & Mehlinger, 1992). One explanation offered for this failure is the reluctance and/or inability of curriculum writers, both overseas and in New Zealand, to convey the aims of social studies in a manner that can be readily understood by teachers (Openshaw, 2004). As a consequence, teachers have lacked concrete referents for an informed discussion related to citizenship—all they have are curriculum aims stated in “vague, rhetorical and ultimately non-operational language” (Openshaw, 2004, p. 270). If teachers are to realise the goal of developing confident, informed, and responsible citizens, sustained “serious talk” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) needs to take place about what this means and how it can be accomplished. Such talk involves teachers in thoughtful and critical dialogue with colleagues about the purposes(s) of social studies education. A possible starting point for this discussion may well be the characteristics of multidimensional citizenship for the 21st century, acknowledged in Cogan (1997, cited in Mutch, 2005).

The nature of social studies education

It was apparent during analysis of the data that the notion of social studies as inquiry was the prevalent theme. Inquiry, the inquiry process, or inquiry studies were considered a central feature of social studies education. To help students in the development of an inquiry, a teacher at the school had produced a series of booklets that contained a number of step-by-step prompts “children work through” (Fiona, Int., p. 9) as they undertake their inquiry. The importance the teachers ascribed to the inquiry process was hardly surprising given that it was the only aspect of student achievement in social studies that was formally assessed on a school-wide basis and for which performance indicators were set. Furthermore, results were available to agencies such as the board of trustees and the Education Review Office. The impact of summative assessment on teachers’ perceptions and practice is well documented in the literature (see, for example, Gipps, 1994).

Social studies as the study of people, human behaviour, and society was apparent in two of the learning outcomes in the Term 3 social studies unit and, along with social studies as the study of values, was mentioned by all the teachers as a feature of social studies education. Other aspects of social studies identified by the teachers tended to be idiosyncratic, and were often listed or mentioned in passing rather than expanded on in any detail; for example, social studies as a study of the past, places, resources, current events, cultures, and New Zealand. These aspects, often recited like a mantra, were either a direct restatement or an approximation of the strands in the national curriculum statements. In addition, the school’s Social Studies Scheme included reference to social studies incorporating the study of New Zealand’s bicultural heritage and multicultural society. However, none of the teachers mentioned either of these latter aspects.

Although social studies as inquiry is a component in each of the four traditions of social studies education, each has its own unique focus and approach to this process (Barr et al., 1978; Hill, 1994). Close examination of the inquiry process outlined in the school’s booklets and explained by the teachers indicated that it was firmly embedded in the citizenship transmission tradition, a tradition that focuses on conservative cultural continuity (Ross, 1997) and the inculcation of students into “the most desirable knowledge, values and skills assumed necessary for survival of the culture” (Barr et al., 1978, p. 19). Writing in the late 1970s, Barr et al. observed that the citizenship transmission tradition is “easily the oldest social studies position and in terms of an enduring impact on school programs and the teachers who people these programs, it is in a league all its own” (pp. 37–38). Some 30 years later this tradition remains, arguably, the most widespread and accepted of the social studies traditions (McKay & Gibson, 2004). It is, however, not without its critics.

The citizenship transmission tradition has been denounced for the way in which it glosses over the complexities in the social world; promotes the notion of a harmonious and homogeneous society; presents knowledge and values in an unreflective, noncritical manner; ignores the importance of political efficacy; pays lip service to students’ needs and interests; and perpetuates a constricted conception of citizenship (Barr et al., 1978; Harrison, 1998; McKay & Gibson, 2004). Moreover, it promotes an overly naïve, narrow, and Eurocentric view of the world (Harrison, 1998; McKay & Gibson, 2004) and is unable to help students achieve “a deepening awareness of the socio-political and economic realities that shape their lives” (Darder, 1991, p. 95). This tradition also underpinned the Term 3 social studies unit, with its focus on students gathering information about natural disasters in New Zealand and the Pacific and identifying how these disasters affected people and/or communities. The achievement objectives and learning experiences outlined in the unit did not give any indication that students were expected to problematise the effects of natural disasters with reference to issues of culture, power, politics, social justice, and/or social efficacy (Beane & Apple, 1999).

In practice, it has been observed that the process of inquiry in schools is often little more than a shadow of the socially critical types of inquiry where students “develop the ability to consider a range of viewpoints and options, to put forward an argument and to justify it, to reflect and evaluate [and] to make informed and ethically sound judgements” (Keown, 1998, pp. 138– 139). Teachers’ reported reluctance to encourage critical inquiry has been attributed to a sense of self-preservation in the face of possible resistance and antagonism from students, parents, and colleagues (Harrison, 1998; Openshaw, 2004; Soothill, 2004). Bailey (2005) has suggested, however, that “teachers need to step up to the mark and contend with [social studies] topics that they may be uneasy dealing with” (p. 176).

Conclusion

If students are to become informed, responsible, and confident citizens who are critical readers of society and transformative agents, teachers will need focused and supported opportunities to reflect on the purpose and nature of social studies education, and to consider their role in and approach to curriculum development. Informed and robust understanding of the purpose(s) of social studies education and what counts as worthwhile social studies knowledge is necessary if teachers are to be in a position to plan effective programmes that meet the aim of education for citizenship. In addition, planning and development of the social studies curriculum needs to be freed from the shackles of technicist templates and the demands of accountability.

For primary teachers there is no better time than the present for such discussion, as the recently released draft of the national curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2006) includes new statements about the purpose, nature, and place of social studies in New Zealand primary schools. The revised statement can therefore serve as a catalyst for initiating “serious talk” about the particulars of planning and developing transformative social studies programmes. Serious talk provides teachers with an opportunity to “deepen knowledge of subject matter and curriculum, refine their instructional repertoire, hone their inquiry skills, and become critical colleagues” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1042). Syndicates are ideal sites for this kind of talk. Drawing on the support of colleagues, school/university partnerships, subject organisations, and other professional networks, syndicates have the potential to function as powerful professional learning communities (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) where teachers jointly create and recreate their curriculum-related knowledge and understanding (Smith, 2005) with reference to their particular context.

References

Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and the curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bage, G., Grosvenor, J., & Williams, M. (1999). Curriculum planning: Prediction or response? A case study of teacher planning conducted through partnership action research. Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 49–69.

Bailey, D. (2005). Who we are: Learning about our identity in social studies. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Towards effective social studies (pp. 163–187). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press.

Barr, H. (1998). The nature of social studies. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), New horizons for New Zealand social studies (pp. 103–120). Palmerston North: Educational Research and Development Centre Press.

Barr, H. (2005). Planning and assessing social studies. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Towards effective social studies (pp. 51–68). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press.

Barr, R., Barth, J., & Shermis, S. S. (1978). The nature of the social studies. Palm Springs: ETC Publications.

Beane, J., & Apple, M. (1999). The case for democratic schools. In M. Apple & J. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 1–29). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bell, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15). New York: Routledge.

Cubitt, S. (2005). Understanding social studies: Addressing the challenges posed by recent reviews of the curriculum statement. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Towards effective social studies (pp. 5–18). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press.

Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1987). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 59–68.

Dewar, S. (2000). Implementing social studies in the New Zealand curriculum: A summary report on the experiences of a national sample of schools. Research Bulletin, 11, 53–63.

Dow, A. (1995). Planning a social studies unit. Good Teacher, Spring, 17–18.

Education Review Office. (2001). The New Zealand curriculum: An ERO perspective. Wellington: Author.

Elley, W. (2004). Curriculum reform in retrospect: Was it forward or backward? In A. M. O’Neill, J. Clark, & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Reshaping culture, knowledge and learning: Policy and content in the New Zealand curriculum framework (pp. 91–108). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1994). Teachers as collaborative thinkers: Activity-theoretical study of an innovative teacher team. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 43–61). London: Falmer Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1), 5–17.

Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing. London: Falmer Press.

Harrison, K. (1998). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum: Dosing for amnesia or enemy of ethnocentrism? In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), New horizons for New Zealand social studies (pp. 63–81). Palmerston North: Educational Research and Development Centre Press.

Hill, B. V. (1994). Teaching secondary social studies in a multicultural society. Melbourne: Longman.

Hunter, P., Hewitt, S., Smith, P., & Taurima, R. (2002). Designing a years 11–13 social studies programme: An exemplar model. New Zealand Journal of Social Studies, 11(1), 31–35.

Irwin, M. (1999). A decade of curricula reform. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), 156–166.

John, D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498.

Keown, P. (1998). Values and social action: Doing the hard bits. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), New horizons for New Zealand social studies (pp. 137–159). Palmerston North: Educational Research and Development Centre Press.

Kohli, W. (2000). Teaching in the danger zone: Democracy and difference. In D. Hursh & E. W. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education (pp. 23–42). New York: Falmer Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marker, G., & Mehlinger, H. (1992). Social studies. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 831–851). New York: Macmillan.

McGee, C. (1997). Teachers and curriculum decision-making. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

McGee, J. (1998). Curriculum in conflict: Historical development of citizenship in social studies. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), New horizons for New Zealand social studies (pp. 43–62). Palmerston North: Educational Research and Development Centre Press.

McGee, J., & Taylor, M. (2001). Planning for effective teaching and learning. In C. McGee & D. Fraser (Eds.), The professional practice of teaching (pp. 154– 175). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

McKay, R., & Gibson, S. (2004). Social studies for the 21st century: A review of current literature and research. New York: E. Mellon Press.

Ministry of Education. (1997). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (1998). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum: Getting started. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2002). Report on the New Zealand national curriculum, 2002– Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved 21 September 2004, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&document

Ministry of Education. (2003). Teachers’ experiences in curriculum implementation: English, languages, science and social studies. Retrieved 21 September 2004, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&document

Ministry of Education. (2006). The New Zealand curriculum: Draft for consultation 2006. Wellington: Learning Media.

Mutch, C. (2005). Confident, informed and responsible citizens: By what means? In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Towards effective social studies (pp. 69–84). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press.

O’Neill, A. M. (with Clark, J., & Openshaw, R.). (2004). Mapping the field: An introduction to curriculum politics in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In A. M. O’Neill, J. Clark, & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Reshaping culture, knowledge and learning: Policy and content in the New Zealand curriculum framework (pp. 25–46). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Openshaw, R. (1998). Citizen who? The debate over economic and political correctness in the social studies curriculum. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), New horizons for New Zealand social studies (pp. 19–42). Palmerston North: Educational Research and Development Centre Press.

Openshaw, R. (2004). Able to take their part? Social studies and the curriculum framework. In A. M. O’Neill, J. Clark, & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Reshaping culture, knowledge and learning: Policy and content in the New Zealand curriculum framework (pp. 265–282). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Roberts, P. (1998). The politics of curriculum reform in New Zealand. Curriculum Studies, 6(1), 29–46.

Rosemergy, C. A. (1997). The planning process of teachers in their construction of classroom curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Ross, E. W. (Ed.). (1997). The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Sewell, A. (2001). Advance Australia fair: Lessons for citizenship education in New Zealand. Delta, 53(1&2), 109–122.

Smith, E. R. (2005). Learning to talk like a teacher: Participation and negotiation in coplanning discourse. Communication Education, 54(1), 52–71.

Soothill, E. (2004). “It’s very important … but we haven’t done much at all”: Improving the implementation of essential learning about New Zealand society. New Zealand Journal of Social Studies, 12(1), 24–33.

Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Continuum.

White, C. (2000). Tuning in: Making popular culture work for social efficacy. In C. White (Ed.), True confessions (pp. 89–99). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Zyngier, D. (2003). Connectedness—isn’t it about time that education came out from behind the classroom door and rediscovered social justice? Social Alternatives, 22(3), 41–49.

Zyngier, D. (2007). Listening to teacher—listening to students: Substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 327–347.

Notes

1&;&;&;Pseudonyms have been used to protect the identity of participants.

2&;&;&;Int. refers to interview and p. to the page number of the interview transcript.

3&;&;&;Synd.Mtg refers to the syndicate meeting and p. to the page number of the transcript of this meeting.

The author

Isabel Browne has had over 20 years’ experience as a primary school teacher and is currently a principal lecturer in the School of Social and Policy Studies at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. She teaches primary and early childhood students and teachers in a range of social studies papers and in a crosscurricula environmental education paper. The study reported in this article was carried out as part of her Master of Education degree.

Email: i.browne@auckland.ac.nz