ADV ANCING SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION THROUGH [614608]

ADV ANCING SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION THROUGH
SELF-STUDY METHODOLOGY

Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices
Vo l u m e 1 0
Series Editor
John Loughran, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Advisory Board
Mary Lynn Hamilton, University of Kansas, USA
Ruth Kane, Massey University, New Zealand
Geert Kelchtermans, University of Leuven, Belgium
Fred Korthagen, IVLOS Institute of Education, The Netherlands
Tom Russell, Queen’s University, Canada
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/7072

ADV ANCING SOCIAL
STUDIES EDUCATION
THROUGH SELF-STUDY
METHODOLOGY
The Power, Promise, and Use of Self-Study
in Social Studies Education
Edited by
Alicia R. Crowe
Kent State University, USA
123

Editor
Alicia R. Crowe
Kent State University
Dept. Teaching, Learning &
Curriculum Studies
White Hall 404
44242 Kent Ohio
USA
[anonimizat]
ISBN 978-90-481-3942-2 e-ISBN 978-90-481-3943-9
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York
Library of Congress Control Number: 2010928482
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written
permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose
of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Series Editor’s Foreword
Over the past two decades, self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) has
become a well-accepted approach to developing insights into teaching andlearn-
ing about teaching as teacher educators have sought productive ways of researching
their practice. The early work of the American Education Research Association’s
(AERA) S-STEP Special Interest Group (SIG) emerged from teacher educators
interested in fields such as reflective practice, action research, and teacher research.
These teacher educators were concerned not with simply studying these fields
but in using them as a basis for studies of their own teaching about teaching
and their students’ learning about teaching. As a consequence, S-STEP became a
well-established methodology for researching teaching and learning about teach-
ing as teacher educators sought to find new ways of enhancing teacher education
at both a personal and institutional level (Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey, &
Russell, 2004).
As the value of S-STEP has become more apparent to teacher educators more
generally, so the field has grown. However, to date, consolidated accounts of self-
studies have not been organized in concerted ways around particular teaching areas.
Rather, consolidated accounts have tended to focus on such things as methodol-
ogy (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009; Tidwell, Heston, & Fitzgerald, 2009), teacher
education reform/renewal (Aubusson & Schuck, 2006; Darling-Farr, Clarke, &
Erickson, 2007; Hoban, 2005; Kosnick, Beck, Freese, & Samaras, 2006), or
extended personal accounts of teacher educators’ efforts to better understand their
own practice (Berry, 2007; Brandenburg, 2008; Schulte, 2009). All of this work
has been important in building a strong base for self-study but an obvious gap in
the literature has been that of studies focused on particular subject areas. Alicia
Crowe and her colleagues have stepped up to the mark and begun to address
this situation through this book focused on teaching about the teaching of social
studies.
In responding to this need for focused studies in a subject area, Crowe has
brought together a strong team of contributors with a range of experiences as social
studies teacher educators. As the list of authors clearly demonstrates, Crowe has
not only had an influence on the nature of researching teacher education in her own
institution, but she has also been heavily involved with the leaders of self-study in
social studies internationally.
v

vi Series Editor’s Foreword
As Crowe makes clear at the outset, self-study is an approach to inquiry and
research that allows teacher education professionals to make sense of, and learn
from, their practice and experience. Working from this position, she has devel-
oped a book that offers other social studies teacher educators a well-structured,
thoughtfully organized, and coherent set of accounts of researching the teaching
of social studies in teacher education programs. As each of the chapters makes
abundantly clear, self-study can help to advance social studies education in very
positive ways. As Dinkleman asserts, “self-study offers great potential to promote
more coherent social studies teacher education programs – [a position that is] nei-
ther complex nor controversial. …[because there is] so much ‘common sense’
to the idea.”
As this book unfolds we are offered interesting perspectives on the intersection
of self-study and social studies. However, at the heart of all of this work is the
concern that research and practice come together in important ways to enhance the
learning opportunities for those involved in teaching and learning about teaching
social studies. These opportunities are offered through a number of different lenses,
each of which creates a way of peering into the world of teaching about teaching
social studies which includes the lenses of pragmatism; individual and collaborative
self-study approaches; modeling; field-based and supervisory approaches; interna-
tionalization; and program coherence. Each of the authors offer well-developed and
thoughtful cases that encourage deeper thinking about the ways in which social
studies and self-study interact in the development of new knowledge of practice. It
is also interesting how the work of Dewey continues to influence those who have a
deep concern for their teaching and their students’ learning.
Dewey’s (1929) view that educational practices themselves must be the source
of the ultimate problems to be investigated in order to build a science of education
seems to ring true with the stance taken by the authors of this book. In fact, Ritter
notes that “Because Dewey theorized that education and society were interactive
and interdependent, he stressed that schooling must be understood as ‘a process of
living and not a preparation for future living’ (Dewey, 1897/2006, p. 24).” This need
to be responsive to the times in which we live is a helpful way of thinking about what
these authors are advocating for the teaching of social studies through each of their
chapters individually, but also collectively.
Obviously a great deal of time, energy, thought, and co-operation has been asso-
ciated with bringing a book together that illustrates quality and coherence in the
way that this book does and the editor and authors need to be congratulated for so
doing. Through their serious focus on the teaching of social studies these authors
have transformed their thinking around that which is possible in teacher education
by raising the expectations for that which should be. I see this book as a catalyst for
those in other subject areas to take seriously the need to offer strong and clear mod-
els of collaboration and co-operation in developing self-study research that further
advances our knowledge of teaching and learning about teaching in new and excit-
ing ways. For Crowe and her colleagues, this project has no doubt been a rewarding
experience, I trust the same will be the case for all those who read this fine addition
to the self-study literature.

Series Editor’s Foreword vii
References
Aubusson, P., & Schuck, S. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education: The mirror maze . Dordrecht:
Springer.
Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: A self-study of the development of myself
as a teacher educator . Dordrecht: Springer.
Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy: Self-study of a teacher educator’s practice .
Dordrecht: Springer.
Darling-Farr, L., Clarke, T., & Erickson, G. (Eds.). (2007). Collective improvisation: Sustaining a
cohort in teacher education . Dordrecht: Springer.
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources for a Science of Education . New York: Liveright.
Dewey, J. (2006). My pedagogic creed. In E. F. Provenzo, Jr., (Ed.), Critical issues in education:
An anthology of readings (pp. 22–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Reprinted from The School
Journal, 54 , 77–80, 1987, January).
Hoban, G. F. (Ed.). (2005). The missing links in teacher education design: Developing a multi-
linked conceptual framework . Berlin: Springer.
Kosnick, C., Beck, C., Freese, A., & Samaras, A. (Eds.). (2006). Making a difference in
teacher education through self-study: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal .
Dordrecht: Springer.
Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V . K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2009). Self-study methodology: Ways to explore practice .
Dordrecht: Springer.
Schulte, A. (2009). Seeking integrity in teacher education . Dordrecht: Springer.
Tidwell, D., Heston, M., & Fitzgerald, L. (Eds.). (2009). Research methods for the self-study of
practice . Dordrecht: Springer.
J. John Loughran

Contents
1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation ….. 1
Alicia R. Crowe and Todd Dinkelman
2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in
Social Studies ………………………… 2 1
Dave Powell
3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr …. 3 7
Linda Farr Darling
4 Self-Study Methodology as a Means Toward Ongoing
Rationale Development and Refinement …………… 5 5
Todd S. Hawley
5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation: A Self-Study
Path to Sharing Social Realities and Challenges in a
Field-Based Social Studies Curriculum Methods Course …… 7 1
Diane E. Lang
6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education:
Facilitating Learning About Teaching for Democratic Citizenship .8 7
Jason K. Ritter
7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through
Self-Study ………………………….. 1 0 3
Libby Tudball
8 Social Skills in Action: An Ethic of Care in Social Studies
Student Teaching Supervision ………………… 1 1 9
Muffet Trout
9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social
Studies Teaching: Bridging Intent and Action ………… 1 3 9
Andy L. Hostetler
10 Complicating Coherence: Self-Study Research and Social
Studies Teacher Education Programs and Practices ……… 1 5 7
Todd Dinkelman
ix

x Contents
11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together: Collaborative
Self-Study in Graduate School as a Space to Reframe
Thinking About Social Studies Teaching and Teacher
Education ………………………….. 1 7 7
Todd S. Hawley, Alicia R. Crowe, Katie Anderson Knapp,
Andrew L. Hostetler, Bryan Ashkettle, and Michael Levicky
12 Looking Across and Moving Forward: Shared Connections
and Future Questions ……………………. 1 9 7
Alicia R. Crowe
Name Index ……………………………. 2 0 9
Subject Index …………………………… 2 1 5

Contributors
Bryan Ashkettle Solon High School, 6011 Parkland Drive, Chagrin Falls, OH
44022, USA, bashket1@kent.edu
Alicia R. Crowe Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies
(TLC), Kent State University, 404 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA,
acrowe@kent.edu
Todd Dinkelman University of Georgia, 629 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602,
USA, tdink@uga.edu
Linda Farr Darling Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, 2125
Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada, linda.darling@ubc.ca
Todd S. Hawley Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies
(TLC), Kent State University, 404 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA,
thawley1@kent.edu
Andy L. Hostetler Louisville High School, 413 S. Silver St., Louisville, OH
44641, USA, alhostet@Kent.edu
Katie Anderson Knapp TLC, 410 White Hall, Kent State University, Kent, OH
44242, USA, knapp@kent.edu
Diane E. Lang School of Education, Manhattanville College, 2900 Purchase
Street, Purchase, NY 10577, USA, diane@volsted.com
Michael Levicky Maplewood High School, 206 North Willow St., Kent, OH
44240, USA, mlevicky@kent.edu
Dave Powell Gettysburg College, 300 N. Washington Street, CB 396 Gettysburg,
PA 17325-1400, USA, djpowell@gettysburg.edu
Jason K. Ritter Instruction & Leadership in Education, Duquesne University, 600
Forbes Avenue, 102A Canevin Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA, ritterj@duq.edu
Muffet Trout University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 4338 10th Ave. S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55407, USA, mille366@umn.edu
Libby Tudball Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800,
Australia, Libby.Tudball@Education.monash.edu.au
xi

About the Authors
Bryan Ashkettle is a social studies teacher at Solon High School in Solon, OH. He
is currently working toward a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction with an emphasis
in social studies education at Kent State University. His interests lie in fostering
critical viewing, risk taking in the classroom, and self-study.
Alicia R. Crowe is an associate professor in the School of Teaching, Learning,
and Curriculum Studies at Kent State University. She teaches many prospective and
current middle and secondary level social studies teachers at the undergraduate and
graduate levels. Her areas of interests include self-study, technology in social studies
education, and social studies teacher education.
Linda Farr Darling is associate professor in the Department of Curriculum and
Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia, and the Rix Professor of Rural
Teacher Education. She has taught social studies and philosophy of education
courses to aspiring teachers since 1992. Linda, her husband, and their golden
retriever divide time between Vancouver and a lakeside cabin in rural British
Columbia.
Todd Dinkelman is an associate professor and program coordinator for social stud-
ies education in the Department of Elementary and Social Studies Education at the
University of Georgia. His research interests include social studies teacher educa-
tion, self-study of teacher education practices, and social studies education more
generally.
Todd S. Hawley an assistant professor in the School of Teaching, Learning, and
Curriculum Studies at Kent State University. His research interests include rationale
development as a core theme of social studies teacher education, the professional
and pedagogical decision-making of beginning teachers, and the intersection of self-
study methodology and social studies teacher education.
Andy Hostetler is a social studies teacher at Louisville High School in Louisville,
OH. He is currently working toward a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction with
an emphasis in social studies education at Kent State University. His interests lie
in democratic classroom engagement, instructional technology in social studies,
rationale development and enactment, and self-study.
xiii

xiv About the Authors
Katie Anderson Knapp is a doctoral student in curriculum and instruction with an
emphasis on social studies education at Kent State University. She teaches courses
at Kent State and John Carroll University. Her scholarly interests include social
studies, teacher education, middle school education, and self-study.
Diane E. Lang , Ph.D. is an assistant professor of education at Manhattanville
College in Purchase, New York. She has extensive teaching, staff development, and
administrative experience in early childhood, elementary, and secondary education.
Her research interests include inquiry-based curriculum, play and learning, teacher
education and development, as well as bilingual learners and language socialization.
Michael Levicky is a licensed integrated social studies teacher, novice philosopher,
amateur social critic, evolving warrior, and part-time funkanaut. In addition to his
work in this text Levicky has also produced several towering piles of academic writ-
ing, strange fiction, lyrics, poems, lists, ideas, and musings kept in large plastic
storage containers around his home.
Dave Powell is an assistant professor in the Education Department at Gettysburg
College, where he teaches courses in educational psychology, issues related to teach-
ing in secondary schools, and approaches to teaching social studies, music, and art
in K–12 settings. He was educated at the College of William and Mary and the
University of Georgia.
Jason K. Ritter holds a Ph.D. in social studies education from the University of
Georgia, and is now assistant professor of education at Duquesne University in
Pittsburgh, PA. His scholarly interests include social studies, teacher education,
professional development, democratic citizenship, and qualitative research through
self-study and narrative inquiry.
Muffet Trout is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Minnesota. Her current
areas of interest include the moral nature of social studies education, implications
of ethical care theory for teacher preparation, and self-study research methodology.
Dr. Libby Tudball is a senior lecturer in education at Monash University in
Australia. She lectures in preservice teacher education programs and supervises
higher degree research students. Her research interests include the internationaliza-
tion of education, teacher professional learning and education, social studies teacher
education, and civics and citizenship education.

From Idea to Fruition
Alicia R. Crowe
An introductory chapter seems like a good place to do something often present in
self-study – the introduction of self and the explanation of the context for the study.
For this introduction, that means introducing who I am and where this idea came
from.
Who Am I?
I am a social studies teacher educator. I love social studies – the content, the skills,
the attitudes, the values, the issues – all of it. I am confident that the teaching of
social studies is an important way to sustain a healthy, robust democracy and help
our young citizens grow into active, thoughtful, respectful, open-minded, and toler-
ant members of that democracy. Although I see mathematics, science, language, and
the arts as equally important to the democratic project, social studies is my subject
area home.
I love to teach teachers and this process fascinates me. Teaching and studying
teaching are exciting and intriguing to me. A little over 10 years ago my advisor,
Charles B. Myers, introduced me to the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
(S-STEP) community and I was welcomed with open arms. I found conversations
about teaching that problematized aspects of teacher education that other research
did not. I found conversations that were intensely personal, theoretical, philosophi-
cal, and practical all at the same time. I found conversations that talked about ethics,
morality, justice, passion, and intellect. Conversations open to even the newest
academic, conversations that kept me coming back for more. Through my first
introduction, I knew I had found an academic home full of members with similar
interests. But wait, didn’t I already have a home as a social studies teacher educa-
tor? I wondered: Can I have two homes? Of course, when I looked around, many of
us lived in two or more worlds – I periodically venture into the academic world of
technology myself. And many of our esteemed colleagues in social studies educa-
tion balance more than one line of inquiry or bring together more than one academic
world on a frequent basis. But, for me, for many years of my academic life, these
two particular academic homes have not come together well. And that, for me, is
where this story begins.
xv

xvi From Idea to Fruition
I am someone who always wanted my research and my teaching to be so inter-
twined that untangling them would prove nearly impossible. I find, like I am sure
many of my colleagues find, that one directly influences the other and the more con-
nected they are for me, the better it is for my students. But these two realms in my
academic life were not as closely aligned in my public life as I would have liked.
As I began my career, I would frequent S-STEP sessions at AERA1and not meet a
CUFA/NCSS2colleague or read or hear a paper specifically focused on the teaching
of social studies and would go to sessions for or by CUFA/NCSS colleagues and not
see any of my S-STEP colleagues or hear of self-study.
As I grew in my two academic homes, I eventually came to learn that Todd
Dinkelman and Marilyn Johnston were two other social studies academics who fre-
quented CUFA/NCSS and who also thought about and engaged in self-study (e.g.,
Dinkelman, 2003; Johnston, 2006; Johnston, Summers-Eskridge, Thomas, & Lee,
2002). But even after learning of their work, it seemed we were a small group and
the gap that remained between these two worlds still seemed more like a chasm. The
connections have been growing over the last few years as new social studies edu-
cation scholars have been adding their voices by beginning to bring social studies
education to self-study (e.g., Dinkelman, Havick, & Hawley 2006; Ritter, Powell, &
Hawley, 2008) and presenting and publishing self-study research in social studies
education venues (e.g., Ritter, Powell, & Hawley, 2007). This project is my humble
attempt to continue to pull together these two worlds to make each field stronger
and to help others who, like me, would like to bring their two worlds together to
make their teaching and research even better.
Conversations Begin
Besides understanding a little about me, a second method to contextualize the ideas
and studies in this book is to introduce you to the conversation that helped move
this project along. At the College and University Faculty Assembly (CUFA) of
the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) annual meeting in 2007, Todd
Dinkelman et al. (2007) led a group of us in a “non-traditional” session called
Self-study in social studies teacher education: Worthwhile attraction or attractive
distraction? This beginning conversation about self-study in social studies educa-
tion at the major conference for social studies teacher educators and researchers
was fairly well attended. I was excited to have been asked to be a part of the “panel”
and to meet social studies educators in the session who were at least intrigued by the
concept of self-study. Over the next year, ideas continued to percolate in my mind.
After conversations with a new colleague at Kent State, the idea began to move
forward. Eventually the email below was sent.
1American Education Research Association
2College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, the
professional organization for social studies education researchers and teacher educators.

From Idea to Fruition xvii
Hello all,
I really enjoyed the opportunity to talk about self-study in social studies education last year at
CUFA. Since Todd has been here at Kent we’ve been talking more and more about this. I was
wondering if we could all get together for a few minutes at this year’s conference to discuss the
prospects of a book that pulls together those in social studies teacher education and self-study to
formalize these conversations. I was thinking maybe Wednesday evening during/after the
reception or Thursday morning.
Talk to you soon,
Alicia
(Text of an email to those who presented about Self-Study at the Annual Meeting of the College
and University Faculty Assembly in November 2007)
The Idea Comes to Life
Within the day, everyone replied and we set a time to meet at the 2008 conference.
We met and agreed that indeed we might have something worthwhile to say. Clearly
we all saw the power and promise of self-study with a specific social studies edu-
cation focus, but, I wondered, what exactly were we all thinking and what would
this look like in the end. So, I set out to gain a solid understanding of just that. I
emailed my four colleagues who participated in the panel again to see if everyone
could share their ideas in written form. With these sampled excerpts, you can begin
to see the essence of what this book is about – self-study and the democratic nature
of social studies.
Jason Ritter shared3:
As i might have alluded to in our talk …i am most interested right now in the idea of
process as it relates to self-study and its intersection with social studies. in particular, as
someone who embraces the idea that social studies is about democratic citizenship educa-
tion, it makes sense to me that our understanding of our teaching of teachers must follow
a similar trajectory. this is where and how self-study becomes essential. so, basically, i am
interested in the messages we convey to our students through our selection of content, ped-
agogical methods, and classroom management; and how this compliments or works against
the stated goal of democratic citizenship. equally important then is how our understandings
of these “messages” evolve with each class we teach. again, this is where i see the value
of self-study. i am curious if you all see these same connections as i do. (Excerpt of email
from Jason Ritter to the group)
Dave Powell replied:
like you, ritter, i find myself drawn to the idea of self-study intersecting with social studies
at democracy, or, rather, maybe at the corner of democracy and pragmatism. i am working
on adding another layer to your idea: part of what i’m trying to do right now is work up an
article that makes the argument that there can be no democracy without pragmatism, or at
least that a pragmatic epistemology helps make democracy make sense – not as a form of
government but as that “conjoint communicated experience” dewey used to talk about. and
if the purpose of social studies is to promote democracy it seems that pragmatism might be
important. (Excerpt of email from Dave Powell to the group)
3All three individuals agreed to printing these excerpts and agreed that keeping the text as it was
typed in the original emails was important.

xviii From Idea to Fruition
Todd Hawley joined in:
Dave your argument about the interaction between the democracy and pragmatism is an
interesting one. I wonder how you are thinking about the “type” of democracy that draws
on a pragmatic epistemology. I guess what I am getting at is the idea that democracy is an
idea that is created and maintained and that pragmatic thinking can help lead us to a certain
type of democratic living/experience that might enable a certain type of society to exist and
be maintained. This would be compared to other types of epistemologies. Not sure what
to call them but they would enable a type of democracy where gay marriage rights can be
granted and taken away or where the people would agree to allow the government to pay
billions on war, or to bail out corporations rather than give each citizen a million dollars.
Your challenge seems to be how do we convince teacher candidates to push pragmatic,
democratic citizenship. Make sense?
Again, one of the problems I am fighting with is the idea that we, as social studies
teacher educators, have ideas of the type of citizens we want our teachers to produce but we
do so with competing conceptions of what these citizens would look like and how to best
prepare our teacher candidates. I hear much of this in what Jason wrote and like the angle
that we could be (and probably are) working against a certain conception of democracy in
the way we go about teaching our classes and working with student teachers. Having said
all of that, I see self-study as a productive way of examining how our own rationales for
teaching social studies teacher education play out in our practice and how our rationales
change/adjust with the differing courses and groups of students we teach. (Excerpt of email
from Todd Hawley to the group)
From these simple beginnings, emerged a book with varied offerings to allow
multiple access points to this larger conversation. I offer to you a collection of
high-quality chapters that each uses self-study to advance social studies education
and deepens the self-study conversation by focusing on self-study in subject matter
specific ways. Through example studies and philosophical arguments I hope this
book begins to convey the power and promise of self-study for social studies educa-
tion that the authors of these chapters and others in self-study have seen through
experience with this genre of research. I hope that with this piece, we are able
to ground self-study in the field we are dedicated to making great, social studies
education.
What is Included in this Book to Think About?
As you read this book, please contemplate two overarching questions: What can
self-study do to advance social studies education? And, How can social stud-
ies focused self-studies add to larger conversations in self-study about teacher
education?
In general, the first chapter provides an overview and broad introduction to
the field of self-study. The second chapter expands this overview with a ratio-
nale for self-study in social studies. Chapters “Looking Glass on the Dresser:
Finding Florence Fisher Farr,” “Self-Study Methodology as a Means Toward
On-Going Rationale Development and Refinement,” “Diversity, Democracy, and
Documentation: A Self-Study Path to Sharing Social Realities and Challenges

From Idea to Fruition xix
in a Field-Based Social Studies Curriculum Methods Course,” “Modeling Self-
Study in Social Studies Teacher Education: Facilitating Learning About Teaching
for Democratic Citizenship,” “Internationalising Social Studies Programs Through
Self-Study,” “Social Skills in Action: An Ethic of Care in Social Studies Student
Teaching Supervision,” “Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social
Studies Teaching: Bridging Intent and Action,” “Complicating Coherence: Self-
Study Research and Social Studies Teacher Education Programs and Practices,” and
“‘I Love It When a Plan Comes Together’: Collaborative Self-Study in Graduate
School as a Space to Reframe Thinking About Social Studies Teaching and Teacher
Education” share nine examples of self-studies within social studies. Each allows
readers privileged access to the messy world of teaching and learning in social stud-
ies education as studied through self-study. Chapter “Looking Across and Moving
Forward: Shared Connections and Future Questions” provides an analysis and
synthesis of the chapters presented in the book.
Specifically, in chapter “Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conver-
sation,” Dinkelman and I provide an overview of the field of self-study, three ways
in which the two fields, social studies education and self-study, share a common
history and interests, and how we see self-study offering promise and possibilities
for social studies teaching and teacher education. These two fields, self-study and
social studies education share a similar history of discussion, debate, and dialogue
over the definition of the field itself, both have a commitment to equity and social
justice, and both include a long history of members holding a high regard and deep
connection to John Dewey (especially his ideas about reflective thinking). In this
chapter, we propose that self-study can help us look into the mystery of the social
studies teacher education process to expose and begin to understand the messiness
of these teaching and learning processes as well as improve social studies teacher
education. We also offer that self-study can bring another type of community to
social studies education, one that adds to the strength we already have as a field.
In “Join or Die” Powell pulls together ideas and positions from Dewey, pragma-
tism, reflective thinking/teaching, and social studies education and argues for the
usefulness of self-study as a way to bring all these areas together. Powell explains
that social studies educators have long argued, lobbied, and hoped for reflective
teaching to be a ubiquitous characteristic or way of being for social studies teachers
but despite years of conversations about its importance this has not come to be. In
later chapters, we see examples of Powell’s argument come to life. Trout’s chap-
ter (“Social Skills in Action: An Ethic of Care in Social Studies Student Teaching
Supervision”), for example, shows a teacher educator as she attempts to balance
three things, (1) her own ideas about what her student teacher should be doing,
(2) where she knows this prospective teacher is in his development, and (3) her
desire to both model and encourage reflective thinking. Hostetler’s chapter (“Self-
Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching: Bridging Intent
and Action”) is another example, in this case of a teacher using self-study to align
intention and action in his teaching.
Chapters “Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr,” “Self-
Study Methodology as a Means Toward On-Going Rationale Development and

xx From Idea to Fruition
Refinement,” “Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation: A Self-Study Path
to Sharing Social Realities and Challenges in a Field-Based Social Studies
Curriculum Methods Course,” “Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher
Education: Facilitating Learning About Teaching for Democratic Citizenship,”
“Internationalising Social Studies Programs Through Self-Study,” and “Social
Skills in Action: An Ethic of Care in Social Studies Student Teaching Supervision”
shift into examples of teacher educators’ use of self-study to understand and improve
their practice. Farr Darling, in “Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence
Fisher Farr,” graciously shares with us the beginnings of her self-study across gen-
erations. Through her narrative she weaves aspects of her grandmother’s life, her
life, and the historical and philosophical landscape around her. As you read this
piece, a picture of two lives emerges that helps you begin to question your own per-
sonal and familial history and how it has influenced who you are as a person and as
a social studies educator.
In, “Self-Study Methodology as a Means Toward On-Going Rationale
Development and Refinement”, Hawley begins by sharing an argument for using
self-study as a means for social studies teachers and teacher educators to develop
and refine their rationale for what, why, and how they teach social studies. Then he
presents his experience with and his findings from his own self-study on rationale
development. In his self-study he examined his teaching of both undergraduate pre-
service and graduate in-service social studies teachers to better understand his own
rationale. In this chapter, he specifically shares what he learned from his electronic
communications with students (emails with the undergraduates and blog postings
with the graduates). Hawley’s self-study exemplifies his own argument that self-
study can be a useful tool to further a teacher’s rationale development. It also gives
another concrete example of Powell’s argument relating to the connection between
self-study, Dewey’s pragmatism, and reflective teaching.
Together, Lang (chapter “Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation: A Self-
Study Path to Sharing Social Realities and Challenges in a Field-Based Social
Studies Curriculum Methods Course”) and Ritter (chapter “Modeling Self-Study
in Social Studies Teacher Education: Facilitating Learning About Teaching for
Democratic Citizenship”) provide explicit examples of social studies teacher edu-
cators, one teaching elementary level prospective teachers (Lang) and one teaching
secondary prospective teachers (Ritter), using self-study to explicitly examine their
teaching to better prepare their students to teach their K–12 students to become
members of a democratic citizenry. Lang’s chapter, “Diversity, Democracy, and
Documentation: A Self-Study Path to Sharing Social Realities and Challenges in
a Field-Based Social Studies Curriculum Methods Course,” provides readers with
insights into how a teacher of elementary social studies preservice teachers worked
with her students, learned form the experience, and helped refine her practice to bet-
ter help her students be attuned to and consider diverse views, diverse student needs,
and social studies as the three come together. While Ritter’s study, “Modeling Self-
Study in Social Studies Teacher Education: Facilitating Learning About Teaching
for Democratic Citizenship,” provides a glimpse into how a social studies teacher
educator grapples with making sure that his practice supports what he wants his

From Idea to Fruition xxi
novice teachers to learn about teaching for democratic citizenship, as well as how
he struggles to make his practice reflect democratic values.
Tudball provides an international voice to this conversation about self-study and
democratic education with her chapter “Internationalising Social Studies Programs
Through Self-Study.” Tudball’s self-study adds depth to the conversation for teacher
educators by allowing us into the practice and thinking of a teacher educator think-
ing about these topics. Tudball grants us access to her struggle as a teacher educator
internationalizing her curriculum and teaching. We see the interactive process of lis-
tening to students, thinking about literature, reflecting on her teaching, and making
changes. Her study provides her with a disciplined and systematic way to learn form
her experience and to share her knowledge and experience with others.
In the next chapter, “Social Skills in Action: An Ethic of Care in Social Studies
Student Teaching Supervision,” Trout demonstrates for readers how Nel Noddings’
Ethic of Care can be combined with social studies teacher education practices. Her
self-study showed her, and lets us all in on, how a teacher educator in a supervisory
role enacts a pedagogy of care as a social studies educator. It gives us a chance
to see the ways in which self-study helped her to enact this pedagogy, examine
it, and learn from the experience. Her piece gives an example of a self-study in
action at the university level in supervision and shows another example of what can
be learned about ones’ practice through self-study and how it connects with her
student’s learning (in this case a preservice teacher).
Hostetler’s chapter shifts the focus slightly, from social studies teacher educators
to a social studies teacher. Hostetler’s chapter, “Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate
Studies and Social Studies Teaching: Bridging Intent and Action,” provides an
example of a social studies teacher using self-study to help himself take what he
was learning in graduate school and make it a part of his everyday life as a social
studies teacher. In this chapter you will read the story of how he came to understand
self-study, his role as a social studies teacher, and his practice as a social studies
teacher in a deeper and more profound way while engaging in a self-study as a part
of a collaborative self-study group from graduate school. This chapter also provides
a concrete example of some of the concepts Powell argues for in chapter “Join, or
Die!: A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies.”
Chapters “Complicating Coherence: Self-Study Research and Social Studies
Teacher Education Programs and Practices” and “‘I Love It When a Plan Comes
Together’: Collaborative Self-Study in Graduate School as a Space to Reframe
Thinking About Social Studies Teaching and Teacher Education” shift the vantage
point yet again, from the standpoint of an individual to that of a teacher education
program. Dinkelman, in “Complicating Coherence: Self-Study Research and Social
Studies Teacher Education Programs and Practices”, helps readers move from the
micro lens of an individual teacher or teacher educator as seen in the earlier chap-
ters to the macro lens of the role of self-study at a program level. In this chapter, he
makes a strong argument for the power and promise that self-study holds for under-
standing the inner workings of teacher education programs as well as how students
experience our programs. He argues that self-study can help us add to our knowl-
edge of social studies teacher education, an area in which calls for more research

xxii From Idea to Fruition
have continually been made. As part of Dinkelman’s argument that self-study holds
promise for understanding social studies teacher education he shares an example
of it from his own program. In his example, we are privy to conversations among
social studies teacher educators as they grapple, together, over ideas important in
their program, specifically the authenticity and honesty of student voices within the
program.
Hawley, Crowe, Knapp, Ashkettle, Hostetler, and Levicky provide an example
in “I Love It When a Plan Comes Together” of a self-study collaborative in gradu-
ate school to help improve social studies teachers’ learning. This chapter includes
four teachers’ self-studies and highlights the power of collaborative self-study for
their learning as social studies teachers. The authors share an example of how their
collaborative group focusing on the self-study of social studies teaching practices
helped set the stage for them to engage in self-studies of their practice to help them
understand and transform their practice. Their example also provides an example
of a different way to think about graduate level teacher education for experienced
teachers.
In 2007, Zeichner, positioning himself and his writing as a self-study insider,
offered advice for the field of self-study to move conversations and the field for-
ward. Part of this advice included better situating self-studies “within existing and
newly emerging research programs” (p. 38). Part of this call means explaining how
the current self-study research builds on previous self-study or other research. Each
of the authors has attempted to do this in their individual pieces. He also specifi-
cally pointed out that, “There is also very little evidence of efforts in the opening
or closing chapters of book-length collections of studies to look across a set of
studies to discuss how a set of studies informs the field as a whole on particu-
lar substantive issues” (p. 39). In “Looking Across and Moving Forward: Shared
Connections and Future Questions,” I attempt to change this situation, at least for
this book. So, in the end, I return to share how I see the theoretical and empirical
works presented in this book fitting together by exploring selected themes across the
writings, sharing my answers to the two questions posed earlier in this introduction
(What can self-study do to advance social studies education? And, how can social
studies focused self-studies add to larger conversations in self-study about teacher
education?), and providing questions that social studies educators could pose when
beginning explorations of themselves and their social studies practice.
References
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-Study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting
reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 6–18.
Dinkelman, T., Crowe, A., Hawley, T., Powell, D., Ritter, J., & Johnston-Parsons, M. (2007,
November). Self-Study in social studies teacher education: Worthwhile attraction or attractive
distraction? Alternative session at the annual meeting of the College and University Faculty
Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, San Diego, CA.
Dinkelman, T., Havick, S., & Hawley, T. (2006). “Real” teacher education standards: A col-
laborative inquiry into shared practice . Presentation at the Sixth International Conference on
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, East Sussex, England.

From Idea to Fruition xxiii
Johnston, M. (2006). The lamp and the mirror: Action research and self studies in the social studies.
In K. C. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in social studies education: Contemporary issues and
perspectives (pp. 57–83). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Johnston, M., Summers-Eskridge, L., Thomas, M., & Lee, Y . (2002). Students of color as cultural
consultants: A self-study with multiple theoretical re-readings. In C. Kosnik, A. Freese, & A. P.
Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux,
East Sussex, England (pp. 24–30).
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D., & Hawley T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative self-
study into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice. 2 (3), 341–357.
Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/2.3.3.pdf
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D. J., & Hawley, T. S. (2008). Do the cultural values underlying our written
feedback to student teachers constrain the conceptions of democratic citizenship we are teaching
for? In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to change in
teacher education: Dialogue, diversity, and self-study. Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux, East Sussex, England
(pp. 268–272). Cedar Falls, Iowa: University of Northern Iowa.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 58 (1), 36–46.

Chapter 1
Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing
the Conversation
Alicia R. Crowe and Todd Dinkelman
Over the past two decades, self-study has secured its place on the map of
approaches to better understanding teacher education. Self-study has attracted inter-
est from researchers and teacher educators representing diverse content areas.
Curiously, however, social studies has remained largely on the sidelines as an under-
represented participant in the growth of this new genre of educational research.
Self-study can be a valuable way for social studies educators—both teachers and
teacher educators—to learn about teaching, learn from their practice, and become
better at what they do. Uniquely grounded in practice and its surrounding contexts,
self-study represents a means of investigation that provides insights into some of
the more elusive, and persistent questions in our field. How do social studies teach-
ers develop their practice over time? In what ways does the quality of relationships
among teacher educators and their students affect what is learned in teacher edu-
cation? How do teacher educators develop competence? How are ideas such as
education for democracy, disciplined inquiry, and “against the grain” teaching taken
up by those first learning to teach social studies? Such complex questions call for
diverse approaches to finding answers. Yet social studies teacher educators have
been somewhat behind the curve in the adoption of self-study methods.
The contributors to this volume hope their work will serve as an invitation to
others in the field to catch up with researchers from other fields who have used
self-study research to better understand teacher education practices, programs, and
processes. We hope other social studies educators might be drawn to the same fea-
tures of self-study research that have caught the attention of science educators, early
childhood educators, and researchers across the broad span of teacher education.
Self-study has helped many explore how powerful educational reform ideas pro-
moted in schools and colleges of education are translated and played out in school
classrooms. Self-study has prompted careful consideration of the ways in which
our own values and commitments are lived in our work as teacher educators. Self-
study has provided a kind of research that makes visible the connections between
A.R. Crowe (B)
Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies (TLC), Kent State University,
404 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA
e-mail: acrowe@kent.edu
1 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_1, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

2 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
scholarship and improved practice. Self-study has emerged as a genre of inquiry that
not only provides different kinds of insights into teacher education than available
through other educational research approaches, but it also represents a theoretical
and philosophical argument for the integration of research and teaching as an inte-
grated whole. Beyond merely an approach to researching teacher education, some
see self-study as a stance taken in relation to academic traditions that draw clear
lines between scholarship and instruction.
To extend the invitation, this chapter introduces the social studies education
community to that of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. It is
designed to offer the reader first glimpses into several different aspects of the self-
study enterprise. We begin with an exploration of self-study in two different senses,
self-study as a community and as a research genre. We then explain some of the
aspects of what makes self-study self-study. In this overview, we address features
that have drawn attention and interest to this genre of research more generally and
highlight some of the tensions, issues, and questions that continue to shape the
emerging field of self-study research. After this introduction to the field as a whole,
we discuss ways we believe self-study might serve social studies education research
and teaching.
We hope the chapter and the book as a whole are read with some of the same
questions we held in mind as we thought about the intersections of self-study
research, social studies teaching and learning, and social studies teacher educa-
tion. Do the same sorts of interests, tensions, and questions that frame conversations
about self-study also apply to conversations about research in social studies edu-
cation? In what ways does self-study research fit with distinguishing features of
the nature and practice in social studies education? How might self-study work for
me in my institutional context and how might it contribute to the larger commu-
nity of social studies researchers? If our work leads to more informed consideration
of these questions, we will have accomplished a lot. The remainder of the book
provides insights into these questions by illuminating the kinds of self-study work
done by social studies education researchers, their motivations, and their experi-
ences with the genre. In the end, we will leave you, the reader to make a hopefully
more informed decision about self-study as an approach to knowing and doing in
social studies teaching and teacher education.
Understanding Self-Study
A simple definition or explanation of self-study would serve as a natural entry point
to the ideas and research in this book. However, much like the field of social stud-
ies, self-study has grappled with its identity, and continues to do so today. Also
like social studies, the very conversation around the definitions, organizing ques-
tions, and processes of self-study has been so persistent, rich, and deep that it has
become something of a signature feature of what self-study means to those who
work and research within the community. Therefore, we organized this introduction
by addressing what some of the voices are saying in the conversation about key

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 3
features of self-study. In some ways, the discussion around “who we are” and “what
we do” should resonate among those who have been part of similar conversations in
social studies education. In other cases, the discussion is different. Either way, we
believe the following are helpful guideposts for those seeking to develop their own
understanding of self-study.
The Community
One way of answering the question of what is self-study is to look at the people
and activities of those who have worked under the banner of self-study. Self-study
of teaching and teacher education practices is a community of educators and edu-
cational researchers dedicated to studying their own practice. Compared to other
more established fields of educational inquiry, the self-study community has a rela-
tively short formal history dating back only a couple of decades. Yet the community
draws on educational research and reform traditions with much longer histories
(e.g., action research, teacher inquiry, reflective practice) for its intellectual frames
and approaches to studying educational problems. Many self-study researchers find
a professional home in the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
through the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) Special Interest
Group. Formed in 1993, S-STEP currently claims a membership of 272 members
(B. Acharya, personal communication, July 16, 2009), making it the one of the
largest AERA SIGs. A series of biannual meetings also serves as an important forum
that draws together self-study researchers. There have been seven International
Conferences on the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, with an eighth
planned for 2010. The proceedings of these conferences serve as an important
repository for the history of the self-study community.1
As a recent and still emerging field, self-study research has witnessed the devel-
opment of numerous venues for published research. In 2004, self-study scholars
published an impressive handbook (Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russell,
2007) that helps those new to self-study learn more about the field and helps those
of us who are not so new to continue to learn more about ourselves. In 2005, the
field launched a new peer-reviewed journal, Studying Teacher Education, to foster
and communicate research and thinking about self-study of teaching and teacher
education.2Altogether members of the self-study community—teachers, teacher
educators, and other educational researchers—have presented their work at profes-
sional conferences spanning the map of educational studies and published hundreds
of articles and books. For those interested, Loughran (2007) offers an elaborated
overview of the history of self-study and Russell (2007b) shares a summary of the
development of self-study research and practice in teacher education.
1All are accessible online at http://sites.google.com/site/castleconference2010 /
2The journal can be accessed from the Taylor and Francis website at http://www.tandf.co.uk/
journals/titles/17425964.asp

4 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
The rapid development of groups, conferences, and publishing opportunities
reflect what many see as one important way of describing what the field really
represents—a community of educators who share an enthusiasm for closely exam-
ining their own practices, developing understanding about how their work helps
others learn, and sharing ideas about improving the ways we come to know and
teach in education. Indeed, we believe these mutual concerns help to explain why
many see the self-study community as a community in a stronger sense of the term
than merely a group of people who share similar interests. Self-study did not arise
from traditional content area divisions represented by departments and programs
found in schools and colleges of education. Rather, self-study attracts teachers and
teacher educators representing diverse places on the map of teaching and teacher
education through its call to take up the difficult questions of how our values, prac-
tices, and knowledge work together to provide meaningful educational experiences
in the immediacy of our own contexts. Further, the call is answered at times by
those who work in institutions that often question the value of such work. Thus
many find that self-study offers a community of supportive others within which they
can explore scholarship that may not find a comfortable home in other professional
organizations.
The Research Genre
The more conventional way to describe self-study is to characterize it as an approach
to educational inquiry. That is, self-study is not only a community but also a research
genre. Ten years ago, Zeichner (1999) provided an overview of what he described
then as the “new scholarship” of teacher education. Prominent among the trends
he identified was “teacher educators studying their own practices” (p. 11). He
explained, “These studies represent a whole new genre of work by practitioners
that we will be hearing a lot more about in the years to come” (p. 11). A decade
later, self-study appears to have lived up to its advance billing, at least in terms of
having secured a place in the discourse on teacher education research. For Zeichner,
the potential of self-study and other practitioner-grounded forms of research resided
in opportunities to take deep, meaningful, and critical views on both the practices of
teacher education and the structures and contexts that frame this work (p. 11).
Because self-study is nested in the actual practices and experiences of teacher
education, the approach stands to make several different kinds of contributions to
research on teacher education. First, self-study provides an argument for expanding
the ways researchers “come to know” about teacher education by turning attention
to the knowledge generated in the actual doing of teacher education. Second the
knowledge and understanding generated by teacher educators immediately serves
those who can apply this knowledge in their own settings. Third, insights result-
ing from self-study stand to contribute to the broader teacher education community
of scholars and educators. Altogether, these contributions set self-study apart as a
different kind of approach to educational research when compared to other gen-
erally accepted forms of educational research. As a distinct approach to knowing,
doing, and learning in teacher education, and with a history grounded in the work of

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 5
teacher educators looking into their own work, self-study is positioned as a genre of
both practitioner inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) and qualitative educational
research (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009).
The What, How, and Why of Self-Study
A third way to understand self-study is to think about how those in the field talk
about self-study and enact self-studies. Teaching and the teaching of teachers are
complex and, at times, contentious acts. Self-study is a form of inquiry that emerged
from the attempts of teacher educators to grapple with this complexity, to understand
it better, to learn who they were as teacher educators, to understand how they learned
and how they taught, and ultimately to improve teacher education (Loughran, 2007).
One of the most professionally invigorating and inviting aspects of our involve-
ment in the self-study community is learning about the diverse paths others have
taken to the idea and practice of self-study. A shared desire to unravel the mys-
tery of teaching and teacher education draws people with different educational and
life experiences, representing different subject and disciplinary backgrounds, and
from different parts of the globe. Especially because self-study is still very much an
emerging approach to educational research, this diversity has enriched the discus-
sion about virtually every aspect of self-study, including its definition. Much like the
field of social studies, self-study remains in search of consensus about its defining
characteristics.
Indeed, the very definition of self-study research is a point of conversation in the
field. For example, Samaras and Freese (2009) trace their own journeys to make
sense of competing definitions of self-study. They conclude, “Perhaps it isn’t possi-
ble to come up with a fixed definition, and perhaps it isn’t desirable” (p. 11). They
may be right. From our introduction to self-study, we have found our efforts to fix
the conceptual boundaries of this body of work at times frustrating, but mostly our
attempts to categorize and characterize self-study have been gratifying intellectual
challenges. The more we involve ourselves with self-study, the more we come to
understand what sets it apart as an approach to learning about our work as social
studies teacher educators. A compelling part of the appeal of self-study is its inclu-
siveness, as well as the ongoing conversation it offers about who we are and what is
of value. Still, as a primer to the conversation, we take a nominal approach to a dis-
cussion of the features that define self-study as an approach to inquiry in education.
Next we point to some of the persistent issues and questions featured in conversa-
tions about the nature and methodology of self-study, and we conclude by sharing
some of the reasons why teacher educators engage in self-study.
In the early days of the field, Pinnegar and Russell (1995) shed light on several
defining features of self-study through their introduction of a group of self-studies
included in a special issue of Teacher Education Quarterly , “As both the subject and
the researcher of an inquiry, each author provides simultaneously the experience of
volatile research settings and the analysis of the experience in the ways that may
allow others to understand and use the findings in their own practice” (p. 6). The
attention to both research settings and the researcher’s role in these settings is a

6 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
distinguishing feature of self-study. In this work, the institutional and social contexts
that surround teaching and teacher education are not features merely to be noted
and set aside. Many find that self-study provides space to more fully account for the
context of their work than other research methods allow. Working through problems
of practice inpractice yields ideas about solutions for self-study researchers that
may not be visible from a more detached position. For Pinnegar and Russell, the
potential benefits extend to others as well. They hope readers of self-studies will
“take away insights for their own works as teacher educators” (p. 6). Powerful self-
study “investigates a question of practice from teacher education that is individually
important and also of broader interest to the teacher education community” (p. 6).
One immediate issue that arises in conversations about the definition of the field
is what the selfin self-study means. Answers within self-study range along a con-
tinuum representing the extent to which the self of the researcher is featured as
the focus of inquiry. On one end of this continuum is the view that studies are not
self-studies unless they explicitly and directly attend to the selves being studied.
Self-study in this strict sense is grounded in the idea that we teach “who we are,”
and emphasizes the relationships between beliefs and action. Who does the study is
thewho being studied. As a result, many feel that a regular feature of self-studies
should be that the researcher takes up the question, “How have I changed?” The
other end of the continuum is open to a more loose construction of the meaning of
self. Here, it is enough that self-study researchers initiate studies, frame the problem
or tensions they investigate, and pursue their inquiries within the practice spaces of
their own settings.
Across this range of views, there is a corresponding range of types of self-study
research, from more personal explorations of the psychological self (e.g., East,
2009; Hamilton, Smith, & Worthington, 2008; Russell, 2007a) to studies of prac-
tice that leave the self of the researcher either in the background (e.g., Dinkelman,
Margolis, & Sikkenga, 2006a, 2006b) or unaddressed altogether (e.g., Kosnik &
Beck, 2008). Taking something of a middle position, Bullough and Pinnegar (2001)
suggest that self-study research should seek a balance between a focus on self and
a focus on practice. We understand how some might be troubled by the different
perspectives on a question so basic to the definition of the field. Yet our experience
is that the range of views on the place of self in self-study research speaks to the
inclusive nature and serves as an attractive feature of the self-study enterprise.
If questions about the selfanchor one part of the conversation about the what of
self-study, questions around study anchor another. One way to think of the nature
of study in self-study is to consider its development in light of two other prominent
educational reform movements—reflective teaching (Zeichner & Liston, 1996) and,
more generally, practitioner research (Cochran-Smith & Donnell, 2006). The con-
fluence of these three movements is no accident, for they draw on many of the same
ideas about effective teaching, teacher development, and paths to improved prac-
tice. Although they draw on many of the same ideas, they are distinct. Reflective
teaching has come to refer more to a stance teachers take toward learning from their
work than a formal approach to educational research. Dinkelman’s (2003) descrip-
tion of self-study as “intentional and systematic inquiry into one’s own practice”

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 7
(p. 8) sets self-study apart from reflection by degree, structure, design, and disci-
pline of inquiry rather than by kind of thinking about practice. Clearly self-study
is a form of reflective teaching, but the converse is not always true. Of course,
teachers and teacher educators think about their practice almost reflexively in the
course of any instance of teaching. Some think more about their work more often
and more deeply. Schön’s (1983) notions of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-
action are typically invoked in these discussions. For our purposes, self-study is a
sort of reflection-on-action characterized by systematic, methodical inquiry.
In our view, it is far easier to conceptually and practically separate self-study
from reflective teaching than it is to draw the lines separating self-study from other
forms of practitioner inquiry. The list of parallels runs long and deep among dif-
ferent models of practitioner inquiry, such as action research, teacher research, and
self-study research. All emphasize systematic data collection, collaboration with
others, problem-solving grounded in practice, the role of practitioners in problem-
setting, alternative perspectives, and the importance of context. Also, all approaches
to practitioner research typically are contrasted with what are described as tra-
ditional modes of knowledge production about teaching and learning, as well as
conventional ideas about who gets to engage in more traditional forms of edu-
cational research. To these similarities, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) add that
“notions of validity and generalizability are quite different from traditional criteria”
(p. 43) in most practitioner research, and that most forms of practitioner research
aim to make research public and open to critique. Although the similarities are clear
and abundant, the differences among different kinds of practitioner inquiry appear
to be more obscure and subject to the views of those who try to articulate them.
Attempts to distinguish different forms of practitioner inquiry typically turn
to conversations of methodology (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001; Cochran-Smith &
Donnell, 2006). For example, self-study has had a long relationship with action
research. In fact, many self-study community members also engage in action
research or have been leaders in action research (Jean McNiff and Jack Whitehead
are two examples). But, as a field we have continued to remain a distinct form of
inquiry. Feldman, Paugh, and Mills (2007) explore the relationship between action
research and self-study. They argue that the distinguishing factor is the methodol-
ogy of each rather than the methods employed. They argue that research efforts are
properly characterized as self-studies when they “bring to the forefront the impor-
tance of self, …make the experience of teacher educators a resource for research …
[and] urge those who engage in self-study to be critical of themselves and their roles
as researchers and teacher educators” (p. 959).
Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) explore connections and differences among
selected qualitative methodologies (e.g., narrative inquiry, self-study, action
research) and extend Feldman, Paugh, and Mills’ attempt to differentiate action
research from self-study. Pinnegar and Hamilton distinguish self-study from other
forms of qualitative inquiry that may also focus in some way on teachers’ prac-
tices or on the self in two ways, the “explicit ontological stance of the researcher”
and “the use of dialogue as an essential element of the coming-to-know process”
(p. 77). They explain that self-study brings the ontological forward and makes it

8 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
more explicit than most other research. Rather than the epistemological stance in
much research, self-study as Pinnegar and Hamilton explain takes an ontological
stance. They define ontological stance as “an orientation in doing research whereby
the researcher feels an obligation to improve the quality of the lived experience of
others and is interested in using research as a tool for creating environments that
reflect the researchers’ beliefs about what the ideal situation or experiences would
be” (p. 237). As they share:
underlying our concern in studying our own practice as teacher educators is our obligation
to create practice environments that enable our teacher candidates to flourish in ways that,
in turn, contribute to deeper learning for their future students. …Our orientation is toward
developing the experienced world rather than making warrantable claims about the world.
(p. 57)
Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) explain that “self-study is a stance toward under-
standing the world” (p. v). They share that, “when we label the work we do as
self-study, we do so because in the collection of the data and the presentation of the
work, we make the relationship of the self to the other a central part of the focus of
the work” (p. v).
Besides helping to sort out self-study from other forms of practitioner inquiry,
inquiries into the methods and methodology of self-study expose other questions
and tensions in the field. One such issue is whether self-study can be properly clas-
sified as a method of educational research proper, or whether it is better understood
more as an approach to generating knowledge of teaching and teacher education
that draws on diverse methods. In tracing the history of self-study of teaching and
teacher education, Loughran (2007) concludes that
…[I]t is clear that the “one true way,” the template for a self-study method, has
notemerged. Rather self-study tends to be methodologically framed through the ques-
tion/issue/concern under consideration so that it invokes a use of a method(s) that is most
appropriate for uncovering evidence in accord with the purpose/intent of the study. (p. 17,
emphasis in original)
The questions of methods for engaging in self-study figure heavily in self-study
conversations and contribute to conceptions of both what self-study is and how to
engage in self-study. For example, LaBoskey’s (2007) work on the methodology
of self-study yielded five distinguishing characteristics. She found that self-study
research (1) is self-initiated and focused; (2) is improvement-aimed; (3) is interac-
tive and collaborative; (4) includes multiple, mainly qualitative, methods; and (5)
casts validity as a process based in trustworthiness. These characteristics suggest a
framework of conceptual foundations for the field and point to appropriate forms of
inquiry that might be properly understood as self-study research methods.
The third characteristic LaBoskey identified, the interactive and collaborative
aspect, highlights a common point of agreement about the “how” of self-study—
the important role played by collaboration. The selfof self-study risks giving the
impression of lone researchers off on their own, contemplating questions of being
and existence. Although some self-study researchers do contemplate being and
existence (e.g., Feldman, 2006), contemplation with others is a celebrated feature
of how researchers conduct self-studies. Self-studies typically are designed to facil-
itate reframing, improving practice within institutional contexts, involving students,

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 9
sharing interpretations, revealing shortcomings, and opening research to different
interpretations. The emphasis on interaction and collaboration goes far in explain-
ing why some view self-study as a community as much as a genre of educational
research.
When looking for a distinct understanding of the how of self-study, it becomes
clear that self-study researchers use a variety of qualitative methods and may
borrow from many other qualitative forms of inquiry including narrative inquiry,
autoethnography, action research, case study, and phenomenology. This diversity
is one of the features of the body of self-study literature. There are many ways
tostudy the self. The richness of methods used is an attribute in self-study that
we value. It brings complexity and nuance to conversations because of the diverse
nature of the structure of studies. Two recent edited collections, Lassonde, Galman,
and Kosnik (2009) and Tidwell, Heston, and Fitzgerald (2009), focus on presenting
examples of this diversity in methods used. Tidwell, Heston, and Fitzgerald’s col-
lection highlights, for example, the use of electronic communication tools to engage
in a collaborative self-study (Berry & Crowe, 2009), the use of narrative inquiry
(Kitchen, 2009), and the use of visual representations (e.g., Mitchell, Weber, &
Pithouse, 2009; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2009). Pinnegar and Hamilton’s (2009) most
recent work into self-study methodology explores the methodological assumptions
and background for self-study, goes into great detail regarding data collection and
analysis from a self-study perspective, and delves into issues of trustworthiness in
self-study work.
If you ask many within the field why we engage in self-study you will likely
hear a multitude of varied responses. In some ways, the reasons we engage in self-
study also contribute to and reflect our notions of what self-study is. Across most
responses, you will hear a common theme of an interest in understanding practice to
improve practice as well as an underlying desire by teacher educators to teach in the
ways that they want their students, future teachers, to teach (Loughran, 2007). Some
use self-study as a means to align their beliefs and practices, some use self-study
to better understand a specific method or strategy, some use it to model reflection
for their students, while some use it to create more accurate and deeper explana-
tions of teaching for purposes of tenure and promotion (Berry, 2007). Baird (2007),
after examining several chapters in the International handbook of self-study teach-
ing and teacher education practices , “assert[ed] that people invest time and effort in
self-study because the practice provides significant personal challenge, while also
providing powerful personal benefits that are achieved through everyday profes-
sional practice” (p. 1471). Some of these benefits include a sense of empowerment,
improved personal practice, improved practice that in turn improves schooling more
broadly, and self-understanding.
Social Studies Education and Self-Study
Hopefully, this brief overview of self-study helps frame ideas about the nature,
methodology, and rationale for the field. In this section, we extend the discussion
into social studies education. First, we provide an overview of three ways in which

10 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
these two fields share similar histories and interests. Second, we briefly share exam-
ples of how social studies educators have recently worked on in self-study. And,
third we offer some benefits self-study may hold for social studies education.
Similar Histories and Interests
There are many areas where social studies educators will find connections with
self-study; we have chosen to point to three potential points of connection in this
overview. First, each field has grappled with a history of multiple visions of what
they are and what their purpose is. Second, prominent voices in each field speak
toward commitments to ensuring equity and social justice through their practices.
Third, both social studies education and self-study can trace an intellectual heritage
that draws heavily on the work of John Dewey, especially his work on reflective
thinking.
Multiple Definitions/Conceptualizations
Social studies education has been plagued by or benefits from, depending on your
perspective, a lack of a single clear identity (Evans, 2004; Ross, 2006). Members
of our field have had a difficult time coming to a definitive definition of what social
studies is (or for some what the social studies are) (Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1977;
Evans, 2004). After 80 or more years, Barr, Barth, and Shermis (1977) offered a
definition with which most hopefully could agree. “The social studies is an integra-
tion of experience and knowledge concerning human relations for the purpose of
citizenship education” (p. 69). But, even within this articulation, further questions
as to the definition of citizenship (Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1977) and the idea of
“good” citizen arise. Conversations continue and will likely continue around what
types of citizenship/citizen are best (e.g., Banks, 2008; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).
This means that teachers’ or teacher educators’ understandings of citizenship may
be very different from one another, and the corresponding approach they take to
preparing future citizens or future teachers may also be very different. Even within
the same department, one may be more focused on preparing global citizens (e.g.,
Banks, 2008), while another may take a more environmental approach (e.g., Houser,
2009), while yet another may focus on building citizens who consider the relation-
ships among sacrifice, trust, and open dialogue for a healthy democracy (Allen,
2004). A teacher or teacher educator who thinks about democracy in one of these
manners when making decisions might teach in ways different from a teacher who
sees citizenship as voting.
Competing definitions of social studies and citizenship both help and hurt social
studies, but some see competing definitions as a vital part of the richness and
strength of social studies. In one sense these variations provide a language both
those new to the field and experienced social studies educators might use to talk
about and negotiate these essential ideas in order to clearly communicate with one
another. In this way, competing definitions allow for growth, expansion, discussion,

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 11
and diversity. Responsibly participating in these conversations is a way of modeling
and living essential aspects of the democracy social studies education is supposed
to nurture.
Like social studies, self-study has grappled with similar issues of identity since
it began. Like social studies, the unsettled nature of the field can be understood as
a healthy and productive feature. As mentioned earlier, within self-study there have
been questions about what counts as self-study, the role of self, (Can it be self-
study if there isn’t a strong self?), the role of collaboration, and how to do good
quality self-study work. These conversations are what renew self-study, what makes
it inclusive, and what makes it a democratic place to be a researcher and a teacher.
Equity and Social Justice
Social studies education and self-study share similar interests in issues of equity
and social justice. Looking across social studies education’s academic venues (e.g.,
CUFA programs, Theory and Research in Social Education) it is easy to find evi-
dence of our interest in equity and social justice. As LaBoskey (2007) shares “Equity
and social justice are core values for self-study researchers” (p. 819). This can be
said of many social studies educators as well. LaBoskey (2009) has written about
self-study as a methodology for social justice in teacher education. She highlights
the power of self-study to work toward social justice ends in teacher education but
she emphasizes that it is not self-study alone; she explains that self-study can be
a powerful tool when there is an explicit focus on issues of race and racism. It is
this explicit focus on social justice that makes self-study a powerful tool in social
justice teacher education. Of course, as with other forms of research, the obligation
to turn self-study to questions of equity and social justice rests with the researcher.
Still, by authorizing teachers and teacher educators to pursue inquiries into their
own questions, in their own settings, and as a “ground level” form of research, self-
study offers unique potential to pursue democratic educational research agendas
that would appear custom-fit to the same agendas important to many social studies
researchers.
John Dewey and Reflective Thinking
It is clear that the work of John Dewey continues to exert influence in shaping
thinking in social studies. His thinking influences conversations about the aims and
purposes of social studies education (Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1977), writing about
teaching for democracy (e.g., Parker, 2003), and the practices of teacher educators
(e.g., Evans, 2008). Likewise, Dewey’s work has influenced the field of self-study.
As Brown (2007) shares, “Self-study is grounded in Dewey’s democratic tradition
and commitment to social consciousness” (p. 548). When looking across the litera-
ture and conversations in social studies and in self-study there are at times explicit
connections to John Dewey and at times there are implicit connections, connections
where the ways of thinking about thinking, learning, and teaching reflect ideas seen
in Dewey’s works. In self-study, the impetus to engage in self-study (e.g., a desire to

12 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
connect intent and action), the deliberate valuing of and focus on an inquiry stance
(e.g., Clandinin & Connelly, 2007), the view of the creation of knowledge (e.g.,
Hamilton, 2007), as well as the role of reflection in self-study all draw from Dewey’s
works.
One of the strongest connections both to Dewey and to one another is reflective
thinking. One can find many connections within each field to reflection (in the forms
of reflective practice, reflective thinking, and reflective inquiry). Self-study emerged
in large part out of a focus in teacher education on Dewey’s notions of reflective
thinking (Loughran, 2007) and for many years social studies educators have con-
nected with reflective thinking (McAninch, 2004; Ross, 1994). As a sampling only,
Massialas and Cox (1966) grounded inquiry teaching in Dewey’s conceptions of
reflective thinking, Fenton (1966) covered reflective thinking as a part of his work to
help teachers learn to teach the New Social Studies, and NCSS published a bulletin
in 1994 dedicated to reflective practice and Dewey’s influence is notable throughout
the work (Ross, 1994). Powell (Chapter 2) goes into greater detail about reflective
practice in social studies and how self-study can be a systematic method to engage
in reflective practice in social studies.
What Have Social Studies Self-Studiers Been Focused on Lately?
A driving motivation for the contributors to this book is their desire to see self-study
secure a greater presence on the map of social studies education research. Compared
to other educational research domains, self-study has “had little currency in social
studies education” (Johnston, 2006, p. 57). Yet if social studies has lagged behind,
it is not the case that there has been no interest. Johnston (2006) provides a survey
of social studies work in both self-study and action research. Like Johnston, in the
most recent handbook of research on social studies education, Adler (2008) reviews
a growing body of self-study research in social studies teacher education. She cites
the possibility of self-study as a means to “contribute in a systematic, reflective way”
(p. 345) to what the field knows about the preparation of social studies teachers.
Much of the work featured in this book adds to the developing body of work cited by
Johnston and Adler. If the research referenced across these sources has not secured
a prominent place for self-study on the map of social studies research, at least there
are more markers than on the version representing the field a decade or so ago.
Just a sampling of recent work demonstrates the diversity and range of questions
taken up by some social studies self-study researchers. In a collaborative self-study,
Ritter, Powell, and Hawley (2007) examined their social studies field instruction.
Their examination of the conversations they shared about their practice revealed
that their attention continually returned to three questions: “How might our different
approaches enhance or constrain our work in the field? What role(s) do we, or should
we, play as field instructors? What are the challenges of promoting rationale-based
practice?” (p. 346). Their investigation provides an elaboration of their discussions
and recounts how their self-study led them to reconsider both their practices as field
instructors and how they might shape their practice to improve the teacher education

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 13
program in which they taught. Similarly, Powell and Hawley (2009) show the out-
growth of their self-study background as they share their thinking about their social
studies education curriculum and teaching. Dinkelman, Margolis, and Sikkenga
(2006a, 2006b) and Ritter (2007, 2009) have published self-studies that address
what happens as teachers navigate the transition from teacher to teacher educator.
While others have focused on social justice for self-study audiences (Griffiths, Bass,
Johnston, & Perselli, 2004/2007; Johnston-Parsons, Lee, & Thomas, 2007; Lang &
Siry, 2008), Johnston-Parsons, Lee, and Thomas (2007) share the results of a 3-year
self-study designed to bring social justice and issues of race more to the forefront
of their teacher education program. Lang and Siry (2008) conducted a collaborative
self-study related to the teaching of diversity and social justice in a field-based social
studies and a field-based science education class for elementary prospective teach-
ers. Together, these works reflect a sampling of the ways social studies self-study
researchers have focused their studies recently.
How Might Self-Study Benefit Social Studies Education?
The question of what a relatively new educational research genre such as self-study
has to offer a field such as social studies education raises another question: What
does any kind of research offer a field such as social studies? Those who have
attempted to answer this question frequently find themselves struggling with the
sometimes clear, sometimes not so clear line that separates ought from is. That
is, arguments for what social studies research should, might, or could do for the
field come more readily than claims about what differences research actually has
made or does make. For example, Shaver (2001) argues that social studies educa-
tion research should organize itself around the aim of improving practice. Barton
(2006) elaborates this same theme by offering four purposes social studies research
might serve. He suggests social studies researchers should engage in scholarship
aimed toward “[i]mproving teacher preparation, changing instruction, influencing
policy, and helping communities” (p. 4). Both of these views refer to what ought to
be true of social studies research more than what is true.
In this section, we follow their lead by discussing what we see as the potential of
self-study research to make a difference in social studies education. A starting point
is that self-study research is, almost by definition, concerned with improving prac-
tice. As a research movement largely driven by teacher educators, the obvious area
in which self-study is presently positioned to most improve practice is in the prepa-
ration of social studies teachers. Yet there is nothing about the nature of self-study
that limits its potential for influencing teaching practices to teacher educators alone.
Social studies teachers stand to gain ideas about improving their practice as well,
and self-study offers as much to classroom teachers as it does to university-based
teacher educators. Self-study is an “equal opportunity” approach to knowing and
being in education. Still, we realize that the working conditions for most social stud-
ies teachers present serious constraints to the possibility of adding formal research
to their list of responsibilities. So, even if teacher education represents the main

14 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
social studies arena for self-study research, we would like to believe that there is
some positive relationship between improved social studies teacher education and
improved social studies teaching. So, we focus on the potential benefits for social
studies teacher education.
One powerful way self-study could help improve practice in social stud-
ies teacher education is to inform both teacher educators and teacher education
researchers alike of what goes on in the name of social studies teacher education.
One theme that consistently connects reviews of research on social studies teacher
education (Adler, 1991, 2008; Armento, 1996; Banks & Parker, 1990) is that there
is a lot more that we do not know than we do know about almost every conceivable
aspect of the field. From basic demographic data about both the people who educate
new social studies teachers and those who enroll in their programs to the broad range
of questions about what actually happens when these two groups come together in
teacher education programs, it is difficult to look into any feature of social stud-
ies teacher education before running into a wave of mostly unanswered questions.
Part of the explanation for this state of affairs is the relatively limited capacity of
the small, largely unfunded group of researchers who have taken on social studies
teacher education research. A much larger part of the likely explanation has more to
do with the sheer complexity of the processes and outcomes at work in social studies
teacher education, or any other sort of teacher education for that matter. Whatever
the explanation, self-study stands to shed at least some light on what has remained
to this point hidden from view.
The insights self-study might provide come in two forms. First, the scholarship of
self-study that finds its way into conference presentations, publications, and conver-
sations among colleagues takes us some way toward building understanding within
the field of how social studies teacher education works in other places besides one’s
own. Current research gives some glimpses, as much of the recent research in social
studies teacher education is conducted on and within practices and programs of
teacher education. In her most recent review, Adler (2008) acknowledges the impor-
tance of this work, but continues with a concern—“research on one’s own practice
easily becomes little more than individualistic studies of particular practices”
(p. 346). We are less quick to question the value of such research. At the same
time that social studies teacher education could use a more coordinated program of
research that might allow greater generalizations, we welcome any and all studies,
even the most individualistic, for what they might add to our understanding of the
forms and means of teacher education in a field so characterized by the unknown. A
few inquiries are better than none, and quite a few are better still.
Yet self-study stands to add to our understanding of teacher education not sim-
ply by adding more and more accounts of practice. The contribution is of a distinct
kind. Most reports of self-study research are rich with descriptions of the inter-
play among the contexts, practices, motives, and values in teacher education. These
insider accounts of the work of preparing social studies teachers have the potential to
take the reader closer to the action of teacher education than other forms of research.
Self-study helps others see into the workings of teacher education in unique ways.
Of course, the argument here is not that self-study research will provide the one true

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 15
path toward total enlightenment in teacher education. Rather, we believe the distinc-
tive features of self-study research would complement already accepted modes of
inquiry in social studies education in ways that could advance the field. Gazing into
the mystery of social studies teacher education is made easier and more productive
as the number of vantage points multiplies, including self-study and straightfor-
ward descriptive accounts of practice, such as those represented in Heilman’s (2009)
welcome addition to the literature on the social studies methods class.
The need for expanded opportunities to learn more about the specific practices
and programs of social studies teacher education is striking. Consider that virtually
all of those who conduct research on social studies teacher education undertake
this work as only one part of their professional responsibilities. Most of these
same researchers are social studies teacher educators as well. Yet their work as
teacher educators is largely hidden from view of their colleagues. In the relatively
small world of social studies research, we become familiar with the scholarship of
respected faculty working in other institutions and can cite their contributions to the
field. Yet the familiarity rarely extends to an understanding of how their research
informs their work as teacher educators. The separation of the two worlds of social
studies education faculty is especially curious if there is truth to the often-repeated
notion that “research informs teaching.” Even within a particular institution and
social studies education program, colleagues may know a lot about each other’s
research and little about what each other does as an instructor in, for example, a
student teaching seminar. Self-study research may help to bridge these divides.
A second way in which self-study might contribute to the aim of improving
practice is to generate a different sort of knowledge—knowledge of practice and
programs inpractice and programs. Whether or not the insights gleaned from
research into the ground level work of teacher education are shared with others
external or internal to the institution, the driving rationale for self-study for most
teacher educators has been a desire to improve the quality of teaching and learn-
ing experienced by their students. References to a “knowledge base” in teacher
education research typically connote scholarly findings and interpretations acces-
sible to the broad community of researchers, teachers, and policy makers. The
idea of an “internal knowledge base” is another way to consider what we know
about teacher education. An internal knowledge base represents the accumulated
knowledge, beliefs, and wisdom of practice that operate locally and within the situ-
ated practice spaces of particular teacher education programs. Self-study can make
powerful contributions to this knowledge base. For example, self-study might help
teacher educators examine the extent to which a particular pedagogical strategy used
in a methods class is taken up by preservice teachers as a model they might use
in student teaching settings. Researchers could use self-study to promote a more
coherent program by looking into the ways instructors promote inquiry around core
program themes across the various courses of a program. Intentional and systematic
inquiries into how teacher educators live their ideals in their programs, classrooms,
and field instruction stand to generate knowledge that serves more effective teacher
education programs. Again, the idea is that improved practices within social studies
teacher education programs creates a ripple effect of improved practice in social

16 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
studies classrooms by shaping the values, beliefs, and thinking of those who enter
the field.
Besides improving practice, we believe self-study research offers social studies
researchers an opportunity to build community within social studies education. One
of the currents felt at the biannual Castle Conference (the international self-study
conference), experienced in other forums that feature self-study scholarship, and
heard in the conversations shared by self-study researchers is how exciting and pro-
fessionally affirming it is to know there are others who care about teacher education
in ways that you do. The simultaneous encouragement and intellectual challenge
offered by those drawn to self-study leads to a sort of energizing and rewarding
experience that may not be as widely or deeply felt within other educational research
groups. Stated differently, self-study is, in some ways, a stance that reflects mutually
held commitments to looking at ourselves and our work in the service of improved
teaching and learning. Living one’s values in the practice of teacher education, shar-
ing our thinking about both our strengths and weaknesses as teachers, opening the
window of vulnerability to make our work more public—these are not typical points
of interest addressed by social studies education researchers, nor are we arguing that
they need to be. What we are suggesting is that the social studies research field might
benefit from some of the same streams of support, critical engagement, and com-
munity that have fed researchers from other fields that have adopted the stance of
self-study. Bringing self-study even more strongly into the social studies education
community might serve to free up those who are drawn to the fascinating work of
teaching teachers to write more, share more of their research, and develop a greater
sense of belonging to a community sorely needed in social studies around teacher
education. A more energized community focused on self-study and other forms of
inquiry into social studies teacher education can, in turn, make a difference in the
quality of teacher educations experienced by those who will shape social studies in
classrooms for years to come.
References
Adler, S. (1991). The education of social studies teachers. In J. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research
on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 210–221). New York: Macmillan.
Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.),
Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 329–351). New York: Routledge.
Allen, D. S. (2004). Talking to strangers: Anxieties of citizenship since Brown v. Board of
education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Armento, B. (1996). The professional development of social studies educators. In J. Sikula,
T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp.
485–502). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age.
Educational Researcher, 27 (3), 129–139.
Banks, J. A., & Parker, W. C. (1990). Social studies teacher education. In W. R. Houston,
M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 674–686).
New York: Macmillan.

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 17
Baird, J. (2007). Interpreting the what, why and how of self-study in teacher and teacher education.
In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1443–1481). Dordrecht: Springer.
(Originally published in 2004)
Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1977). Defining the social studies. Arlington, V A:
National Council for the Social Studies.
Barton, K. C. (2006). Introduction. In K. C. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in social studies
education: Contemporary issues and perspectives (pp. 1–10). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishers.
Berry, A. (2007). Self-study in teaching about teaching. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton,
V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study teaching and teacher
education practices (pp. 1295–1332). Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Berry, A., & Crowe, A. R. (2009). Many mile and many emails: Using electronic technologies
in self-study to think about, refine and reframe practice. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, &
L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 83–98). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Brown, E. (2007). The significance of race and social class for self-study and the professional
knowledge base of teacher education. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, &
T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study teaching and teacher education
practices (pp. 517–574). Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Bullough, R. V . Jr., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of
self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30 (3), 13–21.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, M. (2007). Knowledge, narrative, and self-study. In J. J. Loughran,
M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study
teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 575–600). Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally
published in 2004)
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Donnell, K. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: Blurring the boundaries of research
and practice. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary
methods in education research (pp. 503–518). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting
reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 6–18.
Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006a). From teacher to teacher educator: Reframing
knowledge in practice. Studying Teacher Education, 2 (2), 119–136.
Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006b). From teacher to teacher educator:
Experiences, expectations, and expatriation. Studying Teacher Education, 2 (1), 5–23.
East, K. (2009). Using metaphors to uncover selves in my practice. Studying Teacher Education,
5(1), 21–31.
Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Evans, R. W. (2008). Pedagogic creed as foundation: An approach to teaching social studies
methods. The Social Studies, 99 (2), 57–60.
Feldman, A. (2006). Using an existential form of reflection to understand my transformation as a
teacher educator. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a dif-
ference in teacher education through self-study: Studies of personal, professional and program
renewal (pp. 35–50). Dordrecht: Springer.
Feldman, A., Paugh, P., & Mills, G. (2007). Self-study through action research. In J. J. Loughran,
M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study
teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 943–977). Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally
published in 2004)
Fenton, E. (1966). Teaching the new social studies in secondary schools: An inductive approach.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

18 A.R. Crowe and T. Dinkelman
Griffiths, M., Bass, L., Johnston, M., & Perselli, V . (2007). Knowledge, social justice, and self-
study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 651–707). Dordrecht:
Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Hamilton, M. L. (2007). Professional knowledge, teacher education and self-study. In
J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 375–419). Dordrecht: Springer.
(Originally published in 2004)
Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2009). Creating representations: Using collage in self-study. In
D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of
practice (pp. 155–170). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hamilton, M. L., Smith, L., & Worthington, K. (2008). Fitting the methodology with the research:
An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education,
4(1), 17–28.
Heilman, E. E. (Ed.). (2009). Social studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do
it. New York: Routledge.
Houser, N. O. (2009). Ecological democracy: An environmental approach to citizenship education.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 37 (2), 192–214.
Johnston, M. (2006). The lamp and the mirror: Action research and self studies in the social studies.
In K. C. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in social studies education: Contemporary issues and
perspectives (pp. 57–83). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Johnston-Parsons, M., Lee, Y . A., & Thomas, M. (2007). Students of colour as cultural consul-
tants: A self-study of race and social justice issues in a teacher education programme. Studying
Teacher Education, 3 (1), 67–84.
Kitchen, J. (2009). Passages: Improving teacher education through narrative self-study. In
D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of
practice (pp. 35–51). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). We taught them about literacy but what did they learn? The impact
of a preservice teacher education program on the practices of beginning teachers. Studying
Teacher Education, 4 (2), 115–128.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2007). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In
J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Springer.
(Originally published in 2004)
LaBoskey, V . K. (2009). “Name it to claim it”: The methodology of self-study as social justice
teacher education. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods
for the self-study of practice (pp. 73–82). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lang, D. E., & Siry, C. (2008). Diversity as a context for inquiry-based preservice teacher
learning and teaching in elementary school settings: A self-study in teacher education prac-
tices. In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to
change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity, and self-study. Proceedings of the Seventh
International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux, East
Sussex, England (pp. 213–217). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa.
Lassonde, C. A., Galman, S., & Kosnik, C. (Eds.). (2009). Self-study research methodologies for
teacher educators. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Loughran, J. J. (2007). A history and context of self-study in teaching and teacher education prac-
tices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht:
Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V . K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2007). International hand-
book of self-study teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally
published in 2004)
Massialas, B. G., & Cox, B. C. (1966). Inquiry in social studies. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1 Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the Conversation 19
McAninch, A. C. (2004). Reflection in social studies teacher education: Revisiting the work of
Alan F. Griffin. In S. Adler (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies teacher education (pp. 59–74).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Mitchell, C., Weber, S., & Pithouse, K. (2009). Facing the public: Using photography for self-study
and social action. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods
for the self-study of practice (pp. 119–135). Dordrecht: Springer.
Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-Study of practice as a genre of qualitative research.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Pinnegar, S., & Russell, T. (1995). Introduction: Self-study and living educational theory. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 22 (3), 5–9.
Powell, D., & Hawley, T. S. (2009). Four-way street: Curriculum, pedagogy, content, and purpose
to advance the common good. In E. E. Heilman (Ed.), Social studies and diversity education:
What we do and why we do it (pp. 43–46). New York: Routledge.
Ritter, J. K. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from
classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3 (1), 5–22.
Ritter, J. K. (2009). Developing a vision of teacher education: How my classroom teacher
understandings evolved in the university environment. Studying Teacher Education, 5 (1),
45–60.
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D., & Hawley, T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative self-
study into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2 (3), 341–357.
Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/2.3.3.pdf
Ross, E. W. (Ed.). (1994). Reflective practice in social studies. Washington, DC: National Council
for the Social Studies.
Ross, E. W. (2006). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social
studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (3rd ed., pp. 17–36). New York: State
University of New York Press.
Russell, T. (2007a). How experience changed my values as a teacher educator. In T. Russell &
J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education (pp. 182–191). London:
Routledge.
Russell, T. (2007b). Tracing the development of self-study in teacher education research and prac-
tice. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht:
Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2009). Looking back and looking forward: An historical overview
of the self-study school. In C. A. Lassonde, S. Galman, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research
methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 3–19). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action .N e wY o r k :B a s i c
Books.
Shaver, P. (2001). The future of research on social studies—for what purpose? In W. B. Stanley
(Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research (pp. 231–252). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Tidwell, D. L., Heston, M. L., & Fitzgerald, L. M. (2009). Research methods for the self-study of
practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy.
American Education Research Journal, 41 (2), 237–269.
Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship of teacher education. Education Researcher, 28 (9), 4–15.
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X028009004
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction .M a h w a y ,N J :
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V . Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–332). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.

Chapter 2
Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective
Self-Study in Social Studies
Dave Powell
It was once famously said of John Dewey that no major issue for a whole generation
was clarified until he had spoken. These words, uttered by the historian Henry Steele
Commager, reflect both the breadth of Dewey’s intellect and the wide scope of his
social activism. Dewey remained an active conference speaker and column-writer
right up to his death in 1952, just 7 years short of his 100th birthday, and it is now
estimated that as many as 4000 books, papers, and articles have been written about
Dewey’s life, his work, and his philosophy.
It may not come as a surprise, then, that Dewey’s philosophy has been applied
to so many prospective educational reforms in the past century. As a robust and
expanding literature base continues to develop in support of reflective teaching
(see, for example, Brookfield, 1995; Calderhead, 1987; Griffiths, 2000; Schön,
1983, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1996) and self-study (e.g., Clarke & Erickson,
2004; Dinkelman, 2003; Hamilton, 1998; LaBoskey, 2004; Loughran, Hamilton,
LaBoskey, & Russell, 2004; Louie, Drevdahl, Purdy, & Stackman, 2003), for use
in both K–12 settings and teacher education, Dewey’s philosophical outlook once
again appears poised for a comeback. Indeed, as Cole and Knowles (1998) have
argued, the use of self-study “for purposes of self-understanding and professional
development” is “essentially being thoughtful—in a Deweyan sense—about one’s
work.” It is, they add, “reflective inquiry, similar to that widely advocated for
teachers” (p. 42).
But what does it mean, exactly, to be “thoughtful in a Deweyan sense” about
one’s work as a teacher? And how can reflective teaching and self-study help social
studies teachers conceptualize their work in ways that might improve their prac-
tice? Dinkelman (2003) has written that “it is common for those who advocate
reflective and critically reflective approaches to instructional practice to draw on
the work of John Dewey,” much as Cole and Knowles have done (p. 8). As such, a
more thorough understanding of Dewey’s philosophical outlook would presumably
shed valuable light on the possibilities raised by reflective teaching and self-study in
D. Powell (B)
Gettysburg College, 300 N. Washington Street, CB 396 Gettysburg, PA 17325-1400, USA
e-mail: djpowell@gettysburg.edu
21 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_2, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

22 D. Powell
social studies. This seems especially true in light of the fact that reflective teaching
is widely seen as a possible antidote to the control-oriented, fact-based recall and
recitation pedagogical practices that have long characterized social studies teaching
in schools (Cuban, 1984, 1991; Goodlad, 1984; Kincheloe, 2001; McNeil, 1988;
Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985). Perhaps a little Deweyan thoughtfulness is just
what the doctor ordered.
This chapter explores the nature of Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy as it relates
to the concepts of reflective thinking, democratic education, and self-study. Much
more has been written and said about pragmatism and about Dewey’s particular
take on it than can be adequately summarized here. Yet the relationship between
Dewey’s pragmatism and reflective teaching, which together provide a sound ratio-
nale for self-study in social studies education, continues to invite exploration. By
considering the relationship between philosophical pragmatism, reflective thinking,
and self-study, social studies teachers can position themselves to accomplish many
of the most important goals of social education related to democratic citizenship.
A teacher’s ability to think reflectively, and to make that thinking visible through
public dissemination of his or her ideas and experiences, can do a great deal to help
students become actively involved citizens in a participatory democracy.
Dinkelman (2003) has already explored the potential of self-study as a “means
and ends tool” for promoting reflective teaching in teacher education coursework,
but what are the implications of reflective thinking and self-study for social studies
education specifically? Much of the existing literature base on self-study relates to
teacher education generally and is not domain-specific to the subject matter teachers
teach in schools. Missing is a rationale explaining how self-study can help teachers
conceptualize the subjects they teach, as well as their general practice as teachers,
in more meaningful and powerful ways.
As such, I want to attempt to do three things here. First, take a brief look at the
case for reflective thinking as it was laid out by Dewey and link that case to his
pragmatic epistemology, which formed the foundation of Dewey’s unique view of
the world and informed everything from his educational philosophy to his politi-
cal views. Second, explore the literature base on reflective teaching as it pertains to
social studies education and investigate potential reasons that teachers and teacher
candidates in social studies seem to be disinclined to embrace reflective practice
once they enter the field. Finally, look at how the intersection of self-study and
social studies can be made more meaningful through pragmatism, and how reflec-
tive, pragmatic thinking can inform teaching practice both in a technical sense and
as it relates to the specific content of social studies courses. Like many social studies
teacher educators, I believe that social studies teachers can make a significant dif-
ference in the lives of the students they teach by helping those students appreciate
democratic ideas and institutions so they might become more intelligent, less idiotic
(Parker, 2003), participatory citizens. Pragmatic reflection provides a sound basis
for those efforts, and self-study can be an indispensable “tool,” when employed
in concert with reflective thinking, for teachers hoping to teach social studies in
powerful ways.

2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies 23
Deweyan Pragmatism, Reflective Thinking, and Democracy
Dewey was intellectually committed to two deeply intertwined ideas—pragmatism
and democracy—and these ideas provided the basis for his philosophical views on
everything from public education to the time it takes for a person to report his
attention span through “apperception” of a flashing light (Dewey, 1896). In the
absence of pragmatic thinking, which encourages us to unify alternative potential
solutions to the problems we encounter so we might find the most intelligent solu-
tions to those problems, Dewey believed that democracy becomes something else
entirely. Likewise, where there is no democracy, people cannot see the alternatives
that would otherwise lay before them as potential solutions to the problems they
face. When people succumb to dualistic thinking—the temptation to classify the
problems they face in either/or dualities—democracy has little chance of surviving,
let alone thriving.
Convinced that the traditions of Western philosophy resulted in the creation of
a false distinction between “thinkers” and “doers,” Dewey spent the early part of
his career developing a “unified” theory of knowledge that would bring empirical
and rational ways of experiencing the world closer together. What Dewey meant to
prove was that “knowledge is inseparably united with doing,” as Menand (2001) has
written, and he went to great lengths to demonstrate how his theory could be put to
work (p. 322). For instance, the elementary school Dewey founded at the University
of Chicago in 1896 literally served as a laboratory for his philosophical ideas and,
of course, later adopted “Laboratory School” as its official name. In Dewey’s view,
every school classroom should be a place for ideas to expand, not be reduced or
ignored. Since ideas find their genesis in relationships between human beings, he
believed it was essential that classroom life be organized around the kinds of prob-
lems that people actually face in their lives and that the climate of the classroom
be engaging and open. “From the standpoint of the child,” Dewey wrote, describing
most schools at the time, “the great waste in the school comes from his inability
to utilize the experiences he gets outside the school in any complete and free way
within the school itself; while, on the other hand, he is unable to apply in daily
life what he is learning in school” (Dewey, 1900/1990, p. 75). To Dewey, the most
important thing schools could do was mirror the social life that students experi-
enced when they were not in school. The more the two could be brought together
and harmonized, the more likely it was that growth could occur.
This idea easily connects to Dewey’s sense that knowledge cannot be separated
into discrete parts, as prominent philosophers suggested before him. Knowledge
is instead always part of a greater organic whole that must be conceptualized and
understood first before any of its “parts” can make any sense. In Dewey’s school,
“absolutely no separation [was] made between the ‘social’ side of the work, its
concern with people’s activities and their mutual dependencies, and the ‘science,’
regard for physical facts and forces,” as he himself wrote (Dewey, 1900/1990; also
quoted in Menand, 2001, p. 323). The school was to be a place where students
could integrate their knowledge of life as it was lived in many different spheres

24 D. Powell
(home, school, in public, in private) toward the end of synthesizing their experiences
to increase their intelligence and therefore grow as individuals and as members of
society.
Dewey’s attempt to develop a “unified” theory of knowledge also helped sharpen
his sense of what it means to think . He defined reflective thinking as “the kind of
thinking that consists in turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious
and consecutive consideration” (Dewey, 1933; quoted in Shaver & Berlak, 1968,
pp. 349–350). Reflective thinking, to Dewey, was purpose-driven, consecutive (in
the sense that ideas follow one another logically and depend both on earlier ideas
and on later ones for their usefulness), and inquiry-based (pp. 350–353). “Active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge
in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it
tends constitutes reflective thought,” Dewey wrote (p. 353).
The phases of reflective thinking, as outlined by Dewey, were essentially the
same as the steps of what we now commonly refer to as the scientific method: begin
with a “state of doubt, hesitation, perplexity, [or] mental difficulty,” then proceed
to explore “some way out” on the basis of available evidence (pp. 355–356). As he
put it,
…the origin of thinking is some perplexity, confusion, or doubt. Thinking is not a case of
spontaneous combustion; it does not occur just on “general principles.” There is something
that occasions and evokes it. General appeals to a child (or to a grown-up) to think, irrespec-
tive of the existence of his own experience of some difficulty that troubles him and disturbs
his equilibrium, are as futile as advice to lift himself up by his bootstraps …Even when a
child (or grown-up) has a problem, it is wholly futile to urge him to think when he has no
prior experiences that involve some of the same conditions. (pp. 356–357)
There are, Dewey believed, five “essential functions” of reflective activity: sugges-
tion, intellectualization, establishment of a guiding idea or hypothesis, reasoning
(i.e., “the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition”),
and testing the hypothesis by “overt or imaginative action” (p. 357). Moreover,
Dewey suggested that “one can think reflectively only when one is willing to endure
suspense and to undergo the trouble of searching” (p. 357). He thus saw reflective
thinking as an active process that required would-be reflective thinkers to intellec-
tualize both problems and potential solutions and to commit to a kind of intellectual
callisthenic in order to do so.
Dewey’s pragmatism, based on the idea that the practical consequences of
an idea determine its value, informed his view of political institutions as well.
Dewey (1937/1981) made his case for democratic education by emphasizing that
“democracy is much broader than a special political form, a method of conducting
government, of making laws and carrying on governmental administration by means
of popular suffrage and elected officers” (p. 217). Indeed, he said, “it is something
broader and deeper than that” (p. 217).
Dewey argued that democracy is a way of life, not just a political method
employed to help us decide who gets to make decisions for everyone else. “The
key-note of democracy as a way of life may be expressed,” Dewey said, “as the
necessity for the participation of every mature human being in formation of the

2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies 25
values that regulate the living of men together” (p. 217). As he saw it, the very
foundation of democracy “is faith in the capacities of human nature; faith in human
intelligence, and in the power of pooled and cooperative experience” (p. 219). There
was nothing then so important, according to Dewey, as “a rethinking of the whole
problem of democracy and its implications” (p. 225).
The Laboratory School was designed as a place where such rethinking could
occur; it was not merely a proving ground for Dewey’s philosophical beliefs but
a place where social barriers could be removed in pursuit of democracy. Still con-
vinced that pernicious dualisms could be found everywhere in social life, Dewey
(1916) explained, in Democracy and Education, that they exist “in the hard and fast
walls which mark off social groups and classes within a group: like those between
rich and poor, men and women, noble and baseborn, ruler and ruled” (p. 333).
Creation of such false categorizations, in Dewey’s view, was tantamount to “the
setting up of different types of life-experience,” wherein the values of one group
could be considered simply incompatible with the values of others (p. 333). This,
in turn, leads some to exercise power over others through the invocation of special
privileges related to race, gender, social position, or any of a number of irrelevant
statuses that may do nothing to adequately solve the problem at hand.
The only thing that should matter in social problem solving, Dewey believed, is
the quality of the potential solutions advanced by people deliberating among social
equals. School, he believed, could be a place where such deliberation occurred.
Indeed, as he wrote to his wife, Alice, in 1894, “the school is the one form of social
life which is abstracted & under control—which is directly experimental” (quoted
in Menand, 2001, p. 320).
In this regard, pragmatism, to Dewey, was not so much a philosophical position
as a way of explaining how we think and, eventually, how that thinking affects (and
effects) our growth in social, intellectual, and cultural environments. In the words
of the art collector Barnes (1969), Dewey believed that “all genuine experience is
intelligent experience, experience guided by insight derived from science, illumi-
nated by art, and made a common possession through education”; it is a conception,
Barnes argued, that “has implications of the most far-reaching import”:
When the common experience which ought to be the birthright of all human beings is broken
by barriers of ignorance, class-prejudice, or economic status, the individual thus isolated
loses his status as a civilized human being, and the restoration of his wholeness is possible
only by reestablishment of the broken lineage. (p. 9)
We thus become more human through education and social interaction, and school
offers a place for us to explore the nature of our humanity. When people think prag-
matically, Dewey believed, they work to consider the most intelligent solution to a
given problem through careful reflection on past experiences, current circumstances,
and the potential consequences of their decision. When they think democratically,
he believed, people engage in reflective pragmatism to seek out solutions to com-
mon social problems and do so with sensitivity to the needs of the social group
(wholly constructed) in mind. Thus, he might argue, when social studies teachers
engage in “reflectively pragmatic” study of their own practice, they not only position

26 D. Powell
themselves to solve the problems of practice that may present themselves in the
course of teaching, but they also position themselves to see the possibilities inherent
in the social and political nature of their work. In so doing, they model reflective
pragmatism for their students, continuing an organic cycle with great benefits to
society as a whole. This is a cycle that can begin, for all intents and purposes, when
teachers engage in self-study of their own practice and share the results of that study
with others.
In sum, Dewey’s pragmatic sensibility, which he first developed in an effort
to unify two longstanding and, in some ways, competing schools of thought in
Western philosophy, shaped both his educational and political beliefs. Dewey’s
commitment to the unification of ideas is indicated in both his conceptualization
of the “reflective method” of thinking and in his sense that democracy exists when
people carefully examine one another’s viewpoints to enable personal and social
growth. His educational legacy depends as much on his pragmatism as it does on
his commitment to democracy, and the method of reflective thinking that he chose
as a manifestation of both.
The Case for Reflective Teaching in Social Studies
Reflective thinking has long been considered essential to effective and powerful
social studies instruction (Ross, 1994). Hunt and Metcalf (1955) framed the need
for reflective thinking in social studies classrooms in what many consider to be the
seminal work on the subject and acknowledged the influence Dewey had on their
work. In their view, reflection on the “closed areas” of society (where a closed area
is identified as a “segment of culture which traditionally has been largely closed
to reflective examination, and within which many superstitions and rationalizations
may be identified”) was essential to the effective functioning of a democracy (p. xi).
Though they noted that conflict is a constant in most large societies, Hunt and
Metcalf also observed that American culture is “particularly conflict ridden” and
connected this social conflict to debates about the proper role of education in a
democracy (p. 4). They suggested that these disagreements often reveal the anti-
democratic shortcomings of some popular pedagogical approaches and educational
philosophies. “One reason why Americans find it difficult to agree on what the
schools should be doing,” they wrote, “is that many of us do not understand our
culture, and neither can we agree on what would constitute a cultural improvement”
(p. 4). They continued,
Many Americans at the mid-point of the twentieth century even seem to favor educational
practices which would eventually destroy those very aspects of the culture which they prize
most highly. Like moths impelled by their tropisms to fly into a flame, they seem bent on
destroying the very things they cherish. (p. 4)
Written over half a century ago, Hunt and Metcalf’s statement still rings true today.
When they referred to cultural misunderstanding they meant that Americans tend to
have an oversimplified sense of the meaning of democracy. As Goodman (1992) has

2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies 27
written, the “reified image of American democracy is rooted in the republican form
of government that serves as our state apparatus” (p. 3). He continues,
Democracy as practiced in the United States is seen as inherently good and has something to
do with choosing representatives, having faith in the will of the majority, providing certain
checks and balances, and protecting the right to express minority viewpoints. For most
citizens democracy is equated with notions of freedom as reflected by the way our public
and private institutions currently operate. At most, democracy as we generally understand
it needs only minor modifications, such as voting rights acts or court rulings outlawing
segregation, to preserve its virtue. Perhaps the most noticeable part of our democracy is that
it calls for relatively little effort on the part of the average citizen. (p. 3)
What Hunt and Metcalf suggested was that this simplified view of democracy as
little more than an apparatus of government prevents people from appreciating
democracy as “conjoint, communicated experience,” to borrow Dewey’s (1916)
famous term. At the same time, they make a prescient suggestion that something
like “identity politics,” a term we now know too well, can come to dominate when
citizens do not engage their problems pragmatically. This often plays out as an
inalienable right to disagree with anyone about anything, regardless of the author-
ity of the claims made for positions taken, and challenges to such thinking are
often dismissed on the grounds that political positions are a matter of personal
choice and, therefore, unassailable. Social studies teachers who elevate the supposed
right to believe anything, regardless of the consequences of believing it, above the
responsibility to think reflectively and pragmatically about social problems only
reinforce the reified image of democracy Dewey and others have worked so hard to
undermine.
Furthermore, the rapid technological and political change brought on by global-
ization in the second half of the twentieth century has made it easier than ever for
people to find warrants for practically any kind of claim they wish to support. As
the twenty-first century unfolds before us, having brought with it the unparalleled
technological change of the past five decades, people increasingly find themselves
unmoored from the certainties of earlier eras. This can, of course, be a good thing
from the perspective of democratic theorists, as it would seem to suggest that tradi-
tional ways of thinking are less attractive than they once were. In fact, however, the
rapid rate of change often sends people scurrying for the ideological comfort granted
by the certainty of traditional positions. Commenting on the potential impacts of
these transitions just as this era of social and technological change was beginning to
accelerate, Hunt and Metcalf said,
…the rate of industrialization itself tends to generate conflict. It speeds change, with a
result that from generation to generation beliefs undergo marked alteration. Industrialization
creates gulfs between children and parents, parents and grandparents. It also tends to frag-
mentize society into highly specialized occupational groupings, each with its own point of
view and its own peculiar interests. (p. 4)
Kincheloe (2001) picked up the point at the start of the new century when he
explored the notion that much of the world had transitioned socially and intel-
lectually into a “postmodern” phase. “In this so-called postmodern condition,” he
wrote, “individuals have lost touch with traditional notions of time, self, and history”

28 D. Powell
(p. 4). Taking the place of these traditional notions are “new structures of cultural
space and time generated by bombarding electronic images from local, national, and
international locations” that “shake our personal sense of place,” as Kincheloe put
it (p. 4). “Postmodernity,” he argued, “has seen the emergence of a social vertigo”
(p. 4).
The inability of schools to help students respond to “social vertigo” by develop-
ing strong decision-making skills of their own remains one of the most vexing and
enduring problems in social studies education. Like Hunt and Metcalf, Kincheloe
argued that students must be equipped to “get beyond factual memorization and
develop the ability to interpret the world they confront daily” (p. 12). Ross (1994)
suggested that “reflection takes on special importance in social studies teaching
because, without it, the subject can so easily disintegrate into little more than mem-
orization of information that students perceive as irrelevant to their lives” (p. 5). As
Hunt and Metcalf put it, “an apt term for describing the unique task of education in
a democracy is ‘creative resolution of conflict,’” which is certainly also suggestive
of reflection (p. 11). A common thread connecting these viewpoints on reflective
teaching is the idea that social studies classrooms should be places where students
spend a great deal of time thinking about things that will make a difference in their
lives.
The case for reflective teaching in social studies, as outlined here, is based largely
on the idea that in a pluralistic society citizens need to cultivate the ability to pro-
cess discordant views and information so they can make better choices—morally,
ethically, politically, and otherwise—about the social phenomena and problems they
encounter. Faced with a dizzying array of information and choices about how to deal
with that information, many people find themselves seeking comfort in dogmatic
positions already staked out by others. They cling to those positions at their own
expense and at ours. Dogmatic thinking is manifested in the way political partisans
refuse to consider voting for candidates of another party, or in the way employers
refuse to hire people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds. It is manifested in
one person’s peremptory insistence that the country has irrevocably lost its moral
compass and in another’s high-handed belief that “traditional” ways of doing things
can never be of any value in contemporary relationships. Such thinking can also be
found, and is even sometimes nurtured, in social studies classrooms where beliefs
about social and cultural problems are left unexamined and are not confronted, and
it is reminiscent of Dewey’s arguments against dualistic thinking. The call made
by Hunt and Metcalf for genuine cultural understanding, which can be nurtured
by knowledge of social systems in their past, present, and potential future states,
remains unanswered. Democracy depends on pragmatic reflection in order to sur-
vive, but such reflection is rarely experienced by many students at any point in their
school careers. Small wonder we see so little of it in the discourses that dominate
our culture.
By encouraging teachers and their students to focus on social and cultural prob-
lems faced in their daily lives, and to work together toward finding solutions to those
problems (or at least to help students develop the ability to resolve their own con-
fusion about the problems in their own minds), proponents of reflective inquiry had
hoped to reframe social studies as a subject that could help students come to greater

2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies 29
understanding of themselves and their own culture through active engagement with
it, not through passive acceptance of its norms. Instead social studies continues to
be a subject in which thoughtful engagement with social phenomena is severely
limited for many students, leaving them with an acute case of the “Twenty-First
Century Social Studies Blues,” according to Kincheloe’s (2001) diagnosis. Teachers
are hardly immune to the disease themselves, as many apparently have unresolved
issues with “social vertigo” that need to be addressed too.
Several of the most prominent social studies researchers of the last half of the
twentieth century added fresh perspectives to the rationale for reflective inquiry
in social studies classrooms (see, for example, Becker-Ochoa, 2007; Engle, 1971;
Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Massialas & Cox, 1966; Newmann, 1975; Oliver & Shaver,
1966; Stanley & Nelson, 1994; Thornton, 1994) and many, of course, have writ-
ten about the importance of democratic education (e.g., Beane & Apple, 1995;
Goodman, 1992; Gutmann, 1987; Hursh & Ross, 2000; Parker, 2003; Westbrook,
1996, to name just a few). But still, as Newmann (1990) has written, a serious prob-
lem facing teachers is “the profound absence of thoughtfulness in U.S. classrooms”
(p. 44). Thornton (1994) later added, “although university-based educators have
long echoed Dewey in calling for reflective practice in social studies education,
little headway has been made toward its realization in the schools” (p. 5). In spite of
their best efforts, proponents of reflective inquiry in social studies have not seen the
idea implemented widely in schools.
Although the case for reflective thinking and teaching may be as strong as it
has ever been, especially in light of the attention it now receives in the literature
on teacher education, the benefits to be derived from reflection remain out of reach
for many teachers and their students. Without the ability to consider problems and
potential solutions to those problems in thoughtful ways, it seems unlikely that
many students will engage in the kind of responsible citizenship activity their social
studies teachers hope to prepare them for. In short, a question still remains: Why
aren’t teachers more reflective and what can be done to help social studies teachers
embrace reflective thinking in their teaching practice?
Why Aren’t Teachers More Reflective?
Any answer to the question of why teachers do not engage in reflective practice
should be considered in relation to the many possible ways the question itself can
be conceptualized. In other words, how we define reflective thinking and its impor-
tance in teaching and learning says a great deal about how we might go about solving
the problem of not having enough of it in schools. Here reflective thinking has been
defined specifically as it relates to a particular school subject, social studies, and as
it relates to Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy. Moreover, the solutions to be elaborated
here depend on the notion that reflection is not a staple of most social studies class-
rooms, and indeed that students spend a great deal of their time in social studies
class doing things that neither challenge them intellectually nor help them consider
how to make our collective social life better.

30 D. Powell
This is significant because it implies that something needs to be fixed in social
studies education, if not in schools at large. The social studies research commu-
nity, which has for decades sought reform of social studies education in one way or
another (Evans, 2004; Saxe, 1991), is likely to generally agree that this is the case.
But it bears repeating that classroom teachers, by and large, do not seem to feel the
same way. Despite decades of attempts to reform teaching practice in social studies,
teachers seem, for the most part, to teach the way they always did. The concerns
raised by Hunt and Metcalf in the mid-1950s might as well have been raised yes-
terday, and even when Hunt and Metcalf raised them they were, in many ways, old
news.
What this seems to suggest is that any effort to make reflective thinking (or any
other potential “reform” of teaching) become part of the repertoires of individual
teachers should begin with an acknowledgment of how important teachers are to
making that happen. Teachers simply have to believe in a reform or change in prac-
tice (or, in the case of preservice teachers, a change in their perception of what
constitutes “good practice”) before they will implement it. Thornton (1994) has
noted that one of the greatest impediments to change in teaching is the proclivity of
would-be reformers to employ “top-down” approaches to education reform. In many
cases, teachers recognize the power they have to determine what happens in their
classrooms, even if some of that power seems to have been attenuated by the grow-
ing influence of standardized curricula and tests in recent years (see Grant, 2006;
Janesick, 2001; Kreitzer & Madaus, 1995; Yeager & van Hover, 2006, etc.). Social
studies teachers in particular seem to believe that they have a great deal of auton-
omy when it comes to deciding what and how to teach (Stodolosky & Grossman,
1995). Why does that sense of autonomy not permit them to explore the possibilities
inherent in reflective teaching?
One possibility might be that there are, in fact, “two cultures” of teaching in
social studies (Leming, 1989) and that preservice teachers have views about teach-
ing that are simply incompatible with the views espoused by their instructors in
teacher education programs, as Joram (2007) has suggested. When epistemologies
clash, as they often do in teacher education courses, preservice teachers tend to
respond to the cognitive dissonance they experience by simply closing off the sug-
gestions made by their instructors. Another possibility is that the case for reflective
teaching provided to preservice teachers is simply not convincing in light of the
long “apprenticeships of observation” each teacher candidate has endured (Lortie,
1975). This does not necessarily imply that strong rationales for reflective teaching
do not already exist; instead, it suggests that teachers do not seem to fully appreciate
how reflection can impact their teaching practice and help them do their jobs more
effectively. If they did, reflection would be much more common in social studies
classrooms, structural impediments notwithstanding.
Another possibility is that reflection is, in many ways, a political act because it
requires a thinker to consider problems from multiple vantage points and consider
solutions to those problems that, on their face, may seem to be unpalatable at best or
unthinkable at worst. It entails questioning authority and the warrants upon which
authoritative claims are made. This is especially true in social studies classes that

2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies 31
emphasize discussion of social problems. The case for reflective thinking and teach-
ing is driven by a fundamental assumption that society must change—indeed, that
itwillchange whether we work actively for that change or not—and that schools
can help make positive social change a reality. Many teachers simply seem to be
unwilling or unable to conceptualize education this way.
Each of these potential explanations for the paucity of reflective thoughtfulness
in social studies classrooms has merit, and each illuminates possible solutions to
the problem. In the first place, teacher educators, it would seem, need to do a better
job of helping teacher candidates question their own belief systems as they relate
not only to teaching but to the politics of education more widely considered. Yet
this must be done in a way that encourages teacher candidates to develop their own
rationales for reflective thinking, and it must be done in consideration of what those
candidates already believe. Put another way, teacher educators need to respect the
positions staked by their students even if those positions are discordant with their
own and even if they contradict what teacher educators already think they know
about good teaching. Preservice teachers also need to engage in reflective thinking
as students themselves. If they do, it seems reasonable to suggest that teachers will
come to solutions to problems that they had not previously considered and will be
better off for having done so.
At the same time, preservice teachers need to remain open to the possibility that
they do not yet know everything there is to know about teaching simply because
they have seen so much of it. And they need to be prepared to appreciate the inher-
ently political nature of social studies education. Whether they promote uncritical
transmission of cultural values tostudents or critical evaluation of those values with
students, social studies teachers inevitably engage in political work. By recognizing
this, they may find themselves better positioned to encourage thoughtfulness on the
part of their students, which, in turn, should have the desired effect of advancing
a preeminent goal of social studies education: helping students lead lives of active,
compassionate, participatory citizenship.
A potential solution to the problems posed by an absence of reflection in social
studies classrooms thus becomes clearer. Needed is a solution that encourages
preservice teachers to acknowledge the inherently political nature of social stud-
ies teaching so they may engage the problems they face with open-mindedness,
wholeheartedness, and responsibility—three dispositions Dewey (1933) identified
as essential to reflective thinking. Also needed is a rationale for reflective teach-
ing that encourages teachers to “publicize” their own reflection—that is, to share
their reflective thinking with others so that colleagues may come to appreciate the
value of reflective practice as well. As stated earlier, reflective thinking, as a con-
cept, largely emerged from Dewey’s unique take on philosophical issues and on the
nature of thinking and knowing. Dewey’s pragmatism was grounded in the notion
that humans are social animals, inexorably tied to their environments and constantly
reacting to changes within those environments. Beyond that, pragmatism also pro-
vided a rationale for Dewey’s understanding of democracy as both a political form
and as a way of life. In many ways pragmatism is the glue that holds democracy and
reflective thinking together.

32 D. Powell
What social studies teachers need, in sum, is to engage in pragmatic self-study
of their own practice so they can develop the ability to think reflectively about both
problems of practice and the social problems about which they teach. With regard to
the former, teaching provides practitioners with practically endless opportunities to
solve problems. There is surely something to be gained by evaluating case studies of
other teachers’ work, and considering what those teachers have accomplished rela-
tive to the emerging scholarship on teaching, but what may be even more valuable is
sustained, rigorous, systematic evaluation of one’s own work as a teacher. This can
and should begin in teacher education programs and should be nurtured beyond that
as teachers continue their careers in the field.
Analysis of problems related to teaching will almost certainly help teacher can-
didates develop the intellectual habits and dispositions they need to teach social
studies more reflectively and more pragmatically. Democracy thrives when opin-
ions and ideas flow freely, and when people work together to listen to one another
and explore ways of improving their lives. Social studies teachers need to know
how to create the conditions in their classrooms that will promote engagement in
democratic problem solving, and they need to model the skills and dispositions
manifested in such problem solving themselves through the work they do. Reflective
self-study can be a vehicle for making these things happen.
Encouraging Reflective Thinking Through Pragmatism
and Self-Study
In his exploration of the value of self-study in teacher education, Dinkelman (2003)
wrote,
Although it may serve our purposes in day-to-day discourse to speak of reflection as some-
thing distinct from teaching, for Dewey the concepts intertwine to the point that separating
them becomes an artificial act leading to serious and damaging consequences in practice. In
other words, education is a construct unified with the idea of reflection. (p. 8)
Dinkelman’s analysis underscores the larger point being made here, which is that
Dewey’s efforts to seek a unification of ideas—philosophically, educationally, polit-
ically, and otherwise—were driven by his pragmatism, even as these ideas, in turn,
helped Dewey integrate and articulate his pragmatic epistemology. Dinkelman is
certainly correct that Dewey would have seen reflection as indivisible from the
educative process. Dewey quite clearly believed that knowledge is most meaning-
ful in its “whole” form and when it is put to practical use, that we understand the
world as we experience it, and that we do not need to necessarily “break it down” in
order for the world to have meaning. He also believed that when we do try to “break
things down” unnecessarily, the result is that we oversimplify our experiences and
thus render any decisions we may make less intelligent as a result.
It is in Dewey’s relentless quest for unity—in knowledge, in philosophy, in
politics, and in his perspectives on each—that he also makes his most profound
contribution to social studies teachers. Self-study can be an extraordinarily valuable

2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies 33
tool for teachers looking to conceptualize the problems they face and consider them
in light of contextual challenges. Self-study can promote reflective practice, but it
does so only when those engaged in self-study do so reflectively; it should go with-
out saying, in other words, that self-study does not necessarily lead to reflective
practice any more than reflective practice leads inevitably to self-study. To suggest
that self-study is a means to an end (reflective practice) would imply that one must
come before the other. Dewey would have almost certainly rejected that idea. Self-
study is actually, to borrow Dinkelman’s words, a construct unified with the idea
of reflection and, therefore, also unified with the idea of education. To engage in
reflection isto engage in self-study, and vice versa. Self-study without reflection is
not especially valuable because it bypasses the important “intellectual callisthenics”
Dewey prescribed as a necessary aspect of reflective thought.
The real value of self-study lies not in the fact that it formalizes the process of
reflection but in the fact that it encourages the sharing of reflective thoughts. The
growing acceptance of self-study as a method of inquiry by the education research
community legitimizes reflection as much as it does self-study—but in so doing it
legitimizes self-study primarily as a method of reporting data collected in the course
of reflection, not the actual collection of that data. That activity has already been
effectively rationalized. Dinkelman wrote, citing Zeichner and Liston (1996), that
self-study can be distinguished from “reflection-in-action” (as defined by Schön,
1983) in this way:
By distancing oneself from the immediacy of the classroom, by deliberately pursuing
understanding—via the intentional framing of a problem, collection of data, and testing
of hypotheses—self-study highlights the reflective process and yields knowledge about
practice that does not arise from daily practice alone. (p. 9)
But Dewey clearly defined reflective thinking as an intentional process, as a delib-
erate effort to achieve an intelligent solution to a given problem. As Dinkelman
suggested, what makes self-study so valuable is the way it formalizes reflection by
making it public . Or, as Loughran and Northfield (1998) have written, “reflection is a
personal process of thinking, refining, reframing, and developing actions,” whereas
“self-study takes these processes and makes them public, thus leading to another
series of processes that need to reside outside the individual” (p. 15). Engaging in
self-study thus becomes an act of community, which makes it perfectly suited to
social studies education.
This discussion also raises an interesting final question: Can subject matter be
separated from the educational process? Again, it seems that Dewey would say that
it cannot. As such, the unification of content and pedagogical practice seems war-
ranted. The genius of Dewey’s pragmatism was that it enabled him to unify his
positions in many disparate domains, and it does the same for pragmatic teachers of
social studies. Reflective self-study not only enables social studies teachers to intel-
ligently conceptualize the technical aspects of teaching and share those insights with
others, but enables them to conceptualize the subject they teach more powerfully as
well. The attitudes Dewey described as essential to reflection—open-mindedness,
wholeheartedness, and responsibility—are not coincidentally the same dispositions

34 D. Powell
democratic theorists hope citizens will demonstrate in their interactions with others.
In this sense, being a (good) teacher is synonymous with being a (good) citizen.
These concepts become unified as well. Put simply, a social studies teacher is both
ateacher and a knower of social studies at the same time—the teacher teaches the
subject because he knows it, and he knows it because he teaches it, at least when
he is engaged in reflection. Reflective self-study is a method the teacher can use to
become more enlightened about both and share that enlightenment with others.
So why should social studies teachers engage in self-study? They should because
self-study encourages reflection, and because reflection encourages self-study.
When teachers engage in reflective self-study they deliberately and systematically
investigate problems of practice as well as problems associated with being a citizen
in a democracy. In the end, being “thoughtful in a Deweyan sense” about social stud-
ies teaching means engaging in pragmatic, reflective self-study of one’s own practice
as both a teacher and a citizen. It means carefully considering the problems of teach-
ing and being a member of society and understanding that these problems intersect
more than most people realize. Most of all, perhaps, it means sharing understand-
ings with others to build a stronger base of knowledge that might be used to make
intelligent decisions about the preparation of citizens.
When social studies teachers engage in reflective self-study they enhance their
understanding of themselves, their subject, their students, and their practice; in
short, they become inseparable from the educative process and contribute to that
process even as they benefit from it. When we think about social studies education
as a unification of content, pedagogy, and purpose to create curriculum, we come
closest to realizing Dewey’s vision of the school as a social place where democracy
can flourish and can, in turn, help democracy flourish throughout society at large.
Dewey, as an intellectual disciple of Darwin, might have agreed that we can unify
the many perspectives and ideas we have about teaching and about social life—
join them together—or we can watch them die. There is indeed strength in unity, as
Dewey saw it, and social studies teachers would do well to realize the same.
References
Barnes, A. C. (1969). Art and education . Collingdale, PA: The Barnes Foundation.
Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (1995). The case for democratic schools. Alexandria, V A: ASCD.
Becker-Ochoa, A. S. (2007). Democratic education for social studies: An issues-centered decision
making curriculum. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Calderhead, J. (1987). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,
5(1), 43–51.
Clarke, A., & Erickson, G. (2004). Self-study: The fifth commonplace. Australian Journal of
Education, 48 (2), 199–211.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1998). Reforming teacher education through self-study. In
A. L. Cole, R. Elijah, & J. G. Knowles, (Eds.), The heart of the matter: Teacher educators
and teacher education reform (pp. 41–54). San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap Press.
Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms,
1890–1980 . New York: Longman.

2 Join, or Die! A Pragmatic Case for Reflective Self-Study in Social Studies 35
Cuban, L. (1991). History of teaching in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research
on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 197–209). New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3 , 356–369.
Dewey, J. (1900/1990). The school and society . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education . New York: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process . Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Dewey, J. (1981). Democracy and educational administration .I nJ .B o y d s t o n( E d . ) , The later
works (1925–1953) . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work pub-
lished in 1937)
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting
reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 6–18.
Engle, S. (1971). Exploring the meaning of the social studies. Social Education, 35 , 280–288.
Engle, S., & Ochoa, A. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship: Decision making in social
studies. New York: Teachers College Press.
Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Promise for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary schooling for critical democracy . Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Grant, S. G. (2006). Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Griffiths, V . (2000). The reflective dimension in teacher education. International Journal of
Educational Research, 33 , 539–555.
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hamilton, M. L. (1998). Reconceptualizing teacher practice: Self-study in teacher education .
London: Falmer Press.
Hunt, M. P., & Metcalf, L. E. (1955). Teaching high school social studies: Problems in reflective
thinking and social understanding. New York: Harper.
Hursh, D. W., & Ross, E. W. (Eds.). (2000). Democratic social education: Social studies for social
change .N e wY o r k :F a l m e r .
Janesick, V . J. (2001). The assessment debate: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-
CLIO.
Joram, E. (2007). Clashing epistemologies: Aspiring teachers’, practicing teachers’, and profes-
sors’ beliefs about knowledge and research in education. Teaching and Teacher Education,
23(1), 123–135.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social studies/social sciences in the
twenty-first century. New York: Peter Lang.
Kreitzer, A., & Madaus, G. F. (1995). The test driven curriculum. In D. Tanner & J. W. Keefe
(Eds.), Curriculum issues and the new century (pp. 23–38). Reston, V A: National Association
of Secondary School Principals.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004). Moving the methodology of self-study research and practice forward:
Challenges and opportunities. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell
(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices
(pp. 1169–1184). Dordrecht: Kluwer Springer.
Leming, J. S. (1989). The two cultures of social studies education. Social Education,
53(6), 404–408.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study prac-
tice. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teacher practice: Self-study in teacher
education (pp. 7–18). London, U.K.: Falmer Press.
Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V . K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices . Dordrecht: Kluwer
Springer.

36 D. Powell
Louie, B. Y ., Drevdahl, D. J., Purdy, J. M., & Stackman, R. W. (2003). Advancing the scholarship
of teaching through collaborative self-study. The Journal of Higher Education, 74 (2), 150–171.
Massialas, B., & Cox, C. B. (1966). Inquiry in social studies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McNeil, L. (1988). Contradictions of control. New York: Routledge.
Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club . New York: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux.
Newmann, F. M. (1975). Education for citizen action: Challenge for secondary curriculum .
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Newmann, F. M. (1990). Higher order thinking in social studies: A rationale for the assessment of
classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22 (1), 41–56.
Oliver, D. W., & Shaver, J. P. (1966). Teaching public issues in the high school. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life . New York: Teachers
College Press.
Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and
losers in the educational marketplace . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ross, E. W. (Ed.). (1994). Reflective practice in social studies: Bulletin number 88. Washington,
DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Saxe, D. W. (1991). Social studies in schools: A history of the early years. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shaver, J. P., & Berlak, H. (1968). Democracy, pluralism, and the social studies: An approach to
curriculum decisions in the social studies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Stanley, W. B., & Nelson, J. L. (1994). The foundations of social education in historical context. In
R. A. Martusewicz & W. M. Reynolds (Eds.), Inside/out: Contemporary critical perspectives
in education . New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Stodolosky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in
secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24 (8), 5–11.
Thornton, S. J. (1994). Perspectives on reflective practice in social studies education. In E. W. Ross
(Ed.), Reflective practice in social studies: Bulletin No. 88. Washington, DC: NCSS.
Westbrook, R. B. (1996). Public schooling and American democracy. In R. Soder (Ed.),
Democracy, education, and the schools (pp. 125–150) .San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yeager, E. A., & van Hover, S. D. (2006). Virginia vs. Florida: Two beginning history teachers’
perceptions of the influence of high-stakes tests on their instructional decision-making. Social
Studies Theory and Practice, 1 (3), 340–358.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Chapter 3
Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence
Fisher Farr
Linda Farr Darling
The virtue of Dewey’s experimentalism is that it teaches us to
look for ways in which we can be all the things we are, and
encourages us not to believe that there is characteristically only
one and it must trump all the others all the time.
(Ryan, 1995, p. 1)
A Self-Study Across Generations
Tucked into my dresser mirror is a black and white photograph. A young woman
wearing a sleeveless sheath stands in a rowboat, leaning on the oars and holding
out fresh-caught fish. Dark curls escape from the scarf tied around her head. She
has a dazzling smile. In the mirror I see my chin and jaw line are identical to
hers. Otherwise I find little resemblance. It is a snapshot of my father’s mother, my
Grandmother Flo, circa 1924, at Red Bay on Lake Huron. The photograph teases;
each time I look, I want to know about possible resonances, tracings to follow from
her life to mine.
I never knew my Grandmother Flo. By all accounts, Florence Fisher Farr was
remarkable. Among roles she took on—wife, mother, and high school Dean of
Girls—she was an English and history teacher. Flo attended Normal School in
Pennsylvania for 2 years before the United States entered World War I, but did not
teach until earning her bachelor’s degree at Teachers College in 1930. By that time
she had spent many seasons traveling the American and Canadian West with her
husband in their Model T, she had borne two children, losing one in infancy, and she
had become a widow at age 32, just before the Great Depression. Flo began teaching
high school while a single mother, and with her own mother’s help, she took night
L. Farr Darling (B)
Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver,
BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
e-mail: linda.darling@ubc.ca
37 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_3, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

38 L. Farr Darling
classes until she completed her master’s degree in 1932 and was promoted to Dean
of Girls. She died in childbirth at age 39.
Those are facts of her too-short life, but they do not say much about who Flo
was or how she saw the world. They shed little light on her identity. John Dewey
believed identity was “not a brute fact” of existence (Ryan, 1998, p. 409), but an
achievement best envisioned in terms of a lifelong project. If he was right, discov-
ering my Grandmother’s identity as a woman, mother, and educator is an important,
even integral, part of my project. She is one of the “brave, imaginative women who
came before us” (Rich, 1979, p. 205), and I have benefited from her accomplish-
ments. Although my Grandmother and I belong to different eras, resonances beyond
family ones are worth seeking, especially since I am a teacher too.
This chapter begins an intergenerational study of two women teachers, each
shaped by ideological and material forces easier to recognize in retrospect (Weiler,
1988). As our actions reveal, we were and are not passive individuals in this process.
Over two lifetimes Flo and I have shared things including pragmatic recognition of
our circumstances and hope that the future might be otherwise for our children:
more just, more peaceful, and more attuned to the natural world. Her passions for
history, geography, and the realization of democratic ideals were reflected in my
father, and as I look at my practice as primary teacher and social studies educator,
they are reflected, though refracted in ways, in me.
The search for characteristics and commitments of my Grandmother Flo slyly
hints at the promise of self-understanding (Cole & Knowles, 1995). As I look at
her life, I am curious about this possibility. I intend to create a self-study through
her (Grumet, 1991)—one that crosses generations to find insights into a particular
past. All I know of Flo is pieced together from an idiosyncratic archive, including

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 39
my father’s stories, photographs spanning 1918–1936, correspondence, newspaper
clippings, and possessions such as an ivory-handled hairbrush and a gold-plated
compact inscribed “Dean Farr.” As a child, I unknowingly traced her travels with my
parents and sister; awareness of their meaning came later layered with geography
texts and family tales. Her identity captivated the early inquirer in me; I have long
been fascinated by Florence Fisher Farr. My father once gave me a tiny wooden box
that belonged to his mother, and I thought the portrait on the lid must be her. But I
now realize the demure Victorian girl painted with a lacy collar looks nothing like
the striking, spirited woman I am discovering.
As a social studies educator, I want to place Flo’s timeline against the backdrop
of a larger American narrative: part of the intellectual and political history of early
twentieth century. I can add to my archive documents on educational thought in Flo’s
time, including Pennsylvania Normal School curricula and writings of Teachers
College professors between the wars. Additionally, I hope to “bring memory for-
ward” (Strong-Wilson, 2006, 2008) with critical perspective on my own academic
and professional past, to look for actions that may resonate with Flo’s and other
women educators of past generations (Crocco, Munro, & Weiler, 1999).
Always present is the temptation to “reify” her story, or dwell in narrative nos-
talgia (Grumet, 1981). Yet there are “counter-stories” (Strong-Wilson, 2008. p. 6.)
in the interplay between family memories and written histories, between the pri-
vate and public telling (Grumet, 1991). Counter-memories may well surface in the
spaces between my own aspirations and the constraints, enabling and disabling, that
shaped my career in schools, then in universities as a teacher educator holding a cer-
tain vision of social studies. In my own historical version of currere (Pinar, 1994), I
travel back and forth in time and context: classrooms, campuses, and country roads.
I am “scrapbooking” fragments of my Grandmother’s story, pasting them onto pages
with “landscapes of learning” (Greene, 1978) that likely animated her and obstacles
that she struggled against, perhaps shedding light on my own.
Beginnings
In 1917, Florence Fisher, Flo to friends, was twenty, in her last year of Normal
School at Westminster, Pennsylvania, studying to teach high school. She was told
she had a gift for drama (her mother was exasperated by it) and occasionally
Florence dreamed of life on the stage. Teaching was the practical choice, appro-
priate for a middle-class girl before marrying. Yet as Flo planned lessons, she could
not help sneaking in theatrics. Her friends, Mary and Lil, shared her enthusiasm, and
the three staged skits on the campus quad. Their parody on “rules for girls” drew
momentary attention from college administrators.
Florence took the train home on Fridays to Vandergrift, though life with her
mother, Anna, was strained. In photographs Anna’s severe expression and dress give
the impression of someone from a century before. The loss of her first daughter,
Lucretia, in an accident (unspecified in my family) left an overwhelming urge to
protect Florence from the world. Anna was frightened by the wild streak she saw;

40 L. Farr Darling
she longed for Florence to stay home until a good man came along. Samuel Fisher,
a mill manager, quiet and intuitive, understood his daughter better. He calmed the
atmosphere. Florence was by nature restless; and now she was bursting to leave the
Pennsylvania steel town to strike out on her own. She was not sure just how far she
could go.
Florence’s window on the world came mostly through literature in a household
that, judging from those handed down, valued books. She loved biographies and
memoirs, even more than the romantic poetry she had recited on the porch swing.
Her role models were women explorers of the day, including Annie Peck, a climber
who scaled the Matterhorn in 1895. Miss Peck made first ascents of Peruvian
peaks while Florence was a girl trekking with her father across hills outside town.
Newspaper accounts prompted Florence to pester her brother George to take her on
his fishing trips so she could sleep in a tent. To the daughter and granddaughter of
steel workers and dairy farmers, a life spent at sea or on glacier-covered mountains
was irresistibly alluring. She was fascinated by tiny details of the expeditions (Peck,
1911), including Annie’s penchant for wearing men’s pants and “woolies,” under
her skirts or instead of them.
Like many women of her day, Florence was aware she had inherited a world
she did not make, one that granted her little freedom (Weiler, 1988). Traveling
with her brother in 1912, she happened to hear Alice Paul at the University of
Pennsylvania, so she knew at a young age that women’s equal participation in
society was the dream of suffragettes and reformers. Though there were notable
exceptions (Marguerite Harrison showed promise as a journalist, and Delia Akeley
as an amateur anthropologist), careers were severely limited for her sex (Olds,
1985). Yet Flo was preparing to transform some of the reality handed to her, if
given a chance.
Normal School emphasized practical pedagogy (Cuban, 2005), but Flo also stud-
ied educational philosophers including Horace Mann and John Dewey—writers
who shaped her educational ideals and gave voice to her sense of possibility. Mann
(1848) had called education the “great equalizer,” and in that hope, Flo saw how to
turn her frustration as a female to opportunity as a teacher, someone to shake things
up for the next generation. What she knew of the philosophy of Dewey’s Chicago
lab school reflected her intensity as a first-hand learner, her fervent desire to meet
twentieth century America on her own terms (Dewey, 1910/1972b). Flo wanted to
be author of her own history.
Escapes
When the United States entered the War in April 1917, Flo saw how to escape Anna,
Vandergrift, and the script she had been following. Patriotism provided motivation,
too. She convinced one of her professors to introduce her by letter to a Washington
office handling mail for overseas troops. Flo left by train in early September, intend-
ing to stay in the capital until the War ended. She joined hundreds of young people,
including women like her full of energy and newfound independence.

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 41
Five decades later, I traveled to Washington, too. In fact, Flo and I both entered
the city as naïve young women during wartime, but her arrival was less troubled, and
more hopeful than mine. Flo was focused on escape and the capital was exciting.
She was eager to break from parochial expectations, even if familiar discrimina-
tions might surface. Although Flo would have encountered opposition to WWI from
Jane Addams (Crocco, Munro, & Weiler, 1999) and other pacifists, most Americans
believed there was no turning back from involvement, and she would likely have
agreed. In contrast, I went to Washington in 1969 as a newly politicized university
student, returning repeatedly to protest US presence in Vietnam and racial inequal-
ity at home. With its avenues full of antiwar marchers a half century later, Flo might
not recognize the city she had known.
In 1918, still in Washington, Flo met her future husband, William Manuel Farr.
According to family legend, they first saw each other in their uniforms at a gala
for Woodrow Wilson on the White House lawn. Flo, in a kilt and plaid sash, was
performing a highland fling with a troupe of “girls” of Scottish descent, and Will, a
US Air Corps Captain on furlough, was smitten by the auburn-haired dancer.
Will was a soft-spoken Missouri “fly boy,” dark and dashing in photographs, with
waves of center-parted hair and a long aquiline nose. After leaving home to earn a
Columbia University law degree, Will wanted to escape his domineering father for
good. He and his buddy, Dick Wornall, left Carrollton in 1916 to train as ambulance
drivers in France. A faded photograph by a bombed Brittany church shows the two,
young and solemn with chins high. When the United States entered the War, Will
signed up to be a pilot, training with French squadrons. Dick was killed shortly after,
and 4 years later, my own father was named Wornall after him.
After a courtship that survived on letters and leaves, Flo and Will married in
summer, 1919. Road trips to their respective hometowns announcing their engage-
ment are documented in tiny photographs, one in the Fisher’s backyard and another
on the porch of the Farr family home. On a later visit, Will found his mother was
ill. Trained as a medic in his ambulance days, he stayed to nurse her to health.
Sadly, she died within weeks, a victim of the flu epidemic that swept the nation after
the War.
Gypsy Years
Will assumed he would settle down in New York with a law practice. But in a turn
that must have both alarmed and delighted Flo, he discovered living in the east was
not an option. Because his lungs had been severely damaged in a mustard gas attack,
doctors advised Will and his bride to go out west and stay where it was warm and
dry. Breathing would be easier, and the chances for healing his weak constitution
would improve.
The couple outfitted themselves and Will’s Model T for nomadic life. Will made
plans to write up contracts and leases for the burgeoning oil industry throughout
the western states: Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas in summer and Texas
and Louisiana in winter. Flo wrote the expeditionary lists she dreamed of since

42 L. Farr Darling
childhood: naturalist guides, binoculars, makeshift sleeping bags, and as many spare
tires as could be tied to the frame. She was thrilled at the prospect of crossing
wide-open spaces at a time when the country was bursting with exploration and
development: highways being constructed, bridges engineered, and National Parks
carved from wilderness. Flo would witness history.
Beginning spring 1920, Will and Flo traveled through Western States and Canada
for over 7 years, lighting in towns long enough to rent modest cottages, while Will
worked, and to make friends with people from all walks of life: ranchers, bankers,
farmhands, shopkeepers, and auto mechanics. The first summer Flo was pleased to
get a contract selling Encyclopedia Britannica, seeing a chance to meet professors,
schoolteachers, and librarians across the West. A sample set of leather bound vol-
umes was stuffed into the car. In January 1921, they paused long enough in Marshall,
Texas, for my father Wornall Fisher Farr to be born. On his birth certificate, Florence
Fisher Farr has written “housewife” as her occupation, which, given their gypsy life,
must have brought an ironic smile to her face. As soon as the new mother could
travel, the baby nicknamed Sonny was nested in the backseat amongst the softest
belongings. The family migrated north when the roads had thawed from winter and
dried from mud season. If my father heard lullabies as an infant, he heard them over
the rattle of the motor and the churning of gravel. The back seat was his cradle, and
for his whole life he slept better in trains and boats than houses.
The landscapes the family saw revealed at least two conflicting tales about the
American West. In the first tale, familiar to all who grew up reading social stud-
ies texts, territorial expansion was considered America’s manifest destiny. But the
Native peoples already living on the land told a very different story. The massacre
of Lakota Indians at Wounded Knee was recent history, almost within Flo’s lifetime.
The leases Will’s legal hand crafted for oil companies fit the sweeping, optimistic
narrative that belonged primarily to white society of the 1920s, individuals who
were already prosperous and those becoming so.
It was clear to many (Sierra Club president, John Muir was one) that a huge
downside of development was destruction of millions of pristine acres, whether
through grazing (Muir called sheep “hoofed locusts”), mining, or drilling. When
Will, Flo, and Sonny got to California in 1922, the beautiful Hetch Hetchy Valley,
twin sister to Yosemite, was already being flooded as a reservoir for San Francisco,
a story repeated throughout the West.
I do not know how much Flo felt the pull of contradictory narratives as they
traveled new roads across the country. The land must have seemed immense, the sky
limitless; perhaps it looked like there was room for everyone and every endeavor.
Although she documented place names and dates, her postcards are unembellished
with description or reflection. Still, Flo was educated and curious. Growing up, she
was likely familiar with The Century , a Manhattan publication edited by Robert
Underwood Johnson. Conservation hero of the Gilded Age, Johnson, was committed
to “preserving the West’s spectacular natural heritage from the laissez-faire grab for
resources by selfish, unregulated entrepreneurs …” (Harrison, 2009, p. 21). He often
published Muir’s essays about the grandeur of the Western landscapes, essays that
would surely inspire a woman like Flo to discover the majestic vistas herself.

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 43
How troubled she was by Indian reservations they encountered or by corporate
and government decisions that put the habitats and beauty of the West in peril, I can-
not say. I know my father’s own sense of justice was awakened early, no doubt by his
parents, and throughout his life he studied Native American history with quiet inten-
sity and respect. I believe the reverence my father felt for wild places and his devo-
tion to their preservation were also gifts from Flo and Will when he was young. That
is why it was natural for him to pass the love of wilderness to his own two daughters.
Following our father’s lead, my sister and I headed out in 1973 for a 12-week trip
to camp in National Parks across North America. Since childhood, we had shared
tent trailers with our parents who believed blue highways were the only way to see
the country. Growing up we had visited nearly every National Park in the West, from
the Canadian Rockies to the New Mexico canyons to the California Sierras. Mom
dressed us alike in checked cowgirl shirts and jeans; slides show us wading through
creeks or squinting into sunsets, knees brown with trail dust, and one or the other of
us smiling without front teeth. We were eager to travel these roads again.
At 22 years and one semester away from a BA in philosophy, I was restless and
uncertain about my future. The open road offered diversions, chances to mull over
options. Like many of my generation, I saw the 1960s still looming in my rearview
mirror. I was already weary of national politics and longed to make a small-scale
difference by retreating to some pastoral corner. Homesteading was on my mind,
caring for land with woods and meadows, maybe raising sheep or goats. And at this
moment in my life, heading west, I shared with Flo a palpable sense of opportunity,
stirred by thoughts of being under enormous skies, gazing at clean and distant vistas.
Teaching
Snapshots of Flo from the gypsy years reveal an irrepressible spirit, the soul of
a wanderer. She grins at the camera from the running board of a car or from a
beach before diving into the sea, her life of motion momentarily captured. She wraps
silk scarves like turbans, the ends flowing down her back. She wears rugged vests,
tweed knickers, and leather boots laced to her knees, a trekker’s uniform. One of my
favorite photographs is by a cabin in the woods. Flo wears a man’s shirt, trousers
stuffed into rubber boots, fishing pole by her side. Four-year-old Sonny leans into
her contentedly. She looks radiant, as if home from a harrowing river trip.
Some snapshots are dated; it is clear they were on the road when a geographi-
cally settled Sonny might be in kindergarten. Instead he was Flo’s first student. She
created an expansive living curriculum to explore, her passion for teaching coming
alive in the prairies and mountains. My father was intrigued by problems she posed:
“How did these get here? Whose were they?” she mused, looking at pottery shards
on a riverbank. “Why do you think somebody built a road over there?” “Who do you
suppose lives inside?” she asked, pointing to a burrow. When they reached a town,
she sent him on scavenger hunts to piece together its past. She turned routine camp-
ing chores into projects requiring ingenuity: carrying water, cooking meals, finding
supplies. When cumulus clouds were building she asked, “What will the weather be

44 L. Farr Darling
tomorrow?” Arrowheads, fossils embedded in stones, discarded wagon wheels, tufts
of fur in barbed wire fences, tin cans in fire pits, colorful creek names, and home-
steaders’ abandoned gardens—all these became evidence, clues to discovering how
things were made, or came to be, or met their end. For the first six and a half years
of Sonny’s life, Flo’s sense of wonder was all his.
In 1974, 1 year after my own trip West with my sister, I write a letter my father
files for safekeeping. Perhaps I remind him of Flo, or he thinks how delighted she
would be to have known her granddaughters. A job teaching 4–year-olds has landed
in my lap, though I cannot believe my new philosophy degree qualifies me. It is an
alternative preschool, loosely connected to the Education Faculty at the University
of New Hampshire nearby.
I spent all day painting walls, and sorting supplies. I can’t believe how cool the barn is.
There are nooks and crannies for art and music. We have a kitchen so we can bake bread.
We have acres of woods out back—what a way to teach kids science. There are so many
projects we can do outside! We can hatch chicks and we’ll build a cold frame for vegetables.
It’s not much of a salary but I’m so excited.
I stay for 3 years, encouraged by a board of parents to try out progressive
methods and make full use of our limited, often recycled resources. The whole lan-
guage movement has captivated educators, and we make dozens of books. There
are busy but unstructured days: field trips to ponds and ocean beaches, historical
societies, woodworking shops, and art galleries. The children are remarkably cre-
ative and energetic. We tap maple trees for sap to boil into syrup. We care for
classroom pets; “Wonderbunny” eats wheatgrass sprouted on windowsills. I am
thrilled when the students insist on hearing every volume in the Chronicles of Narnia
after being spellbound by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe . Years later I dis-
cover I had transgressed developmental appropriateness for 4-year-olds with these
chapter books.
My students’ enthusiasm for learning is the reason I return to university in 1978
for a master’s, so I can keep teaching after moving from the college town. Their
exuberant “experimentalism” leads me to Dewey’s educational writings. I whole-
heartedly agree that children are not “passive, empty creatures, but bundles of
intellectual, emotional, and moral potential, ready but not predestined to turn into
useful and happy adults” (Ryan, 1998, p. 397). I buy a used copy of School and
Society for a summer class and a professor lends me How We Think . Dewey’s ideas
make surprisingly good sense to me 60 years after Flo discovered them in Normal
School and later wove them into her roadside pedagogy for Sonny.
New York Years
When my father was six and a half, the marvelous migratory life stopped. The tragic
fact was Will’s lungs were weakening. They left the road, forced to move close to
the Veteran’s hospital in New Jersey in September 1927. They found an apartment
on 23rd Street on Manhattan’s Lower West Side, and they enrolled Sonny in school.

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 45
Will died of pneumonia in autumn 1928 with Flo by his side. He was 38. He was
buried with full military honors in Missouri. My father remembered the funeral, but
could not recall how his mother held up over the next months and into the beginning
of the Great Depression. He could not recall his own grief. He said his mother began
to call him Billy after his father’s death.
Now a single mother, Flo was desperate to find good work. Solomon Strong,
a professor from Normal School who had since become a school superintendent,
offered her a full-time position. Flo became assistant librarian at West Orange High
across the river from Manhattan. Even though she had a child, the fact she was wid-
owed allowed Flo to work in schools when only single females were hired. But with-
out a BA, she was not qualified to teach in New Jersey, a temporary setback for Flo.
Even with a steady job, and the Depression weighing heavily, Flo was deter-
mined to teach. Her mother, now a widow herself, moved in to take care of Billy
while Flo returned to school. For 2 years, she attended night classes at Teachers
College, sometimes falling asleep on the trolley going home. I hoped that notes or
assignments would emerge from boxes my father saved, but none surfaced. I can
only speculate about ideas that captured her imagination.
Columbia University was permeated by Dewey’s philosophical, political, and
pedagogical thought (Ryan, 1995). He was still teaching undergraduate philosophy
classes when Flo began night school. Nowhere was his presence felt more power-
fully than in Teachers College. Always civically engaged, Dewey became a hero
to New York teachers in 1913 because of his union advocacy, and he was still the
lively reformer dedicated to bettering conditions for teachers and pupils. Particular
means toward school improvement were popular topics in Flo’s classes, but Dewey
ignored daily detail. “Dewey’s aims as a teacher of teachers, or perhaps one better
say as a provider of moral and intellectual frameworks for teachers were pitched at
a higher level than curricular reform” (Ryan, 1998, p. 396). His ongoing quest “was
to make the modern world more fit to be our home” (Ryan, 1998, p. 408). Because
of the purposeful tone Dewey set from the philosophy department and then as pro-
fessor emeritus, the College was a dynamic space, full of discussion about social
and political challenges. Flo thrived. She was either on the Morningside Heights’
campus or attending evening meetings on women’s rights.
My father said his mother came alive again as a student; she excelled in courses.
She was animated by philosophical currents that ran through the College, interested
in “big ideas,” he recalled, not teaching strategies. He remembered her graduation
in 1930. He was nine and tried hard to listen to the speeches, half-understanding the
occasion’s import. But the afternoon was hot, and Billy fell asleep with his head on
Grandma Anna’s lap. Later, he was reminded that Nicholas Murray Butler addressed
the convocation crowd that spring day. His mother admired the famous University
President, despite his autocratic governance (Ryan, 1995, p. 198). She even read
passages to her son from his political essays. Flo was a dramatic reader, her voice
rising and falling over elegant words like emancipation. Billy preferred the bedtime
stories she read using multiple voices: books like Treasure Island, The Incredible
Voyage of Ernest Shackleton, Call of the Wild, andHuckleberry Finn . She told him
the only thing she loved more than reading adventures was making her own.

46 L. Farr Darling
Once Flo earned her BA, she was hired as a teacher of English and history at
West Orange. Barely pausing after undergraduate work, she entered graduate school
in education, still a part-time student trying to balance multiple roles as mother,
teacher, and scholar. Every working day she crossed the river from Columbia into
intellectual and political territory where a woman who spoke her mind was less
appreciated (Cuban, 2005). Colleagues knew Flo as a theatrical teacher who told
travelers’ tales that brought subjects to life. Judging from students’ written remarks,
she demanded participation and welcomed informed disagreement. This kind of
teaching was not unheard of in history and geography classes in 1930 (Cuban, 2005),
but it was still unusual to find secondary teachers who strayed from lectures. While
some professors encouraged teachers to experiment with methods (Ryan, 1995),
administrators at West Orange High were decidedly conservative. More than once,
Florence argued with the headmaster about what counted as adequate preparation for
future success. She believed the school’s traditional approach encouraged passivity.
As a student of How We Think , Flo wanted students to take ownership of their learn-
ing and exercise independence as thinkers who could intelligently question received
views.
By 1931 Flo had secured a scholarship for Billy at Horace Mann School thanks
to professors’ recommendations. His daily subway ride traversed the length of
Manhattan, but Flo was proud of this opportunity and her expectations for Billy
soared. The school was a famous preparatory ground for leaders. No one knew when
the Depression would end, or what the future would bring, but Flo believed Dewey:
“the only adequate form of preparation was that every pupil must be put in complete
possession of all his powers” (Dewey, 1896/1972a, p. 86). She had faith in her son’s
teachers to do just that. My father said she wrote in the margins of his homework
while they studied together, head to head at the dining room table. One note implores
him to “read the questions carefully!” on an upcoming exam. She encouraged Billy
to overcome his shyness by joining the Drama Club in First Form. The yearbook
shows W. Farr in the first row with bare knees and his hair slicked back. He looks a
little lost in a wool jacket and tie.
My father recalled care packages his mother and Grandmother made for him to
deliver to neighbors on 23rd Street. Although New Jersey teachers were sometimes
paid in near-worthless script, Flo shared what she could, knowing she was luckier
than most. She still found time for adventures with her son, hoping to cultivate a
spirit of inquiry and openness to new experiences. They frequently walked to the
docks to see international river traffic and to nearby stables to visit the work horses.
The day construction on the George Washington Bridge finished, and she and Billy
joined the crowd to ride bicycles across the span. He told me it was exhilarating
to be so high above the water, the marching band ahead of them and the first cars
coming up behind.
Sadly, Billy’s Grandma Anna died of influenza in late 1931. Within months, Flo
married for a second time. According to her brother, her choice was unfortunate;
George later wrote that Vince was “maybe a charmer” but lazy. Billy “disliked him
intensely,” retreating to an apartment closet big enough for reading and tinkering
with mechanical projects. In my father’s later years, he came to believe that his

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 47
mother only wanted a real family again, and expected her husband would provide
for them. But as the Depression dragged on, Vince was more a burden than help.
While they lived in New York, he rarely worked.
Florence, however, landed on her feet after earning her master’s degree in May
1932. She had a good job, a wonderful job, and she marveled at her luck. Imagine!
Florence Fisher Farr, MA, Dean of Girls at West Orange High. Even a year into the
role, she liked the sound rolling off her tongue. In times like these, she did not even
feel the lie was so terrible.
Maybe not terrible, but pretending to be single to keep her job did mean she was
lonesome. During the week, she lived near the school in New Jersey, while her hus-
band and son were still in Manhattan. Alone in her “Suburban Hotel” flat, Florence
imagined what Billy was doing. While dressing for work, she whispered reminders:
“Eat one of those apples, clean socks are on the radiator, don’t forget your math
homework ….” Early Monday mornings while Billy slept, she placed letters inside
his textbooks. I have three on illustrated hotel stationery. “To the sweetest boy in the
world,” one begins, “I’ll see you Friday afternoon!”
My father said he lived for these homecomings. When his mother burst through
the door, she brought sunlight back into the apartment. The depression that dogged
his tracks all week disappeared. Most weekends she would pack up Vince’s Model A
and the three would drive to visit cousins in Pennsylvania, or strike out somewhere
new, the Catskills, or the lush rolling hills of Connecticut. One of her professors had
a cabin in Ontario; several holidays were spent at the lake. One spring vacation she
booked passage for herself and Billy on a steamship to New Orleans, because, she
laughed, she wanted to dine in the French Quarter. They rode the train back home
in time for school to start up again.
On the Road
I wish I inherited Flo’s wandering spirit, or that it surfaced earlier. Instead, I became
a homebody. I was an earnest “back-to-the-lander,” as we were known in the 1970s,
with animals and gardens on 14 hillside acres in New Hampshire. I taught at the ele-
mentary school in the next village. My first-grade classroom was known for messy
art projects and intriguing science experiments that tried the patience of principals.
Ducklings that hatched in our incubator bonded to my students and followed them
to the library and cafeteria. I loved being with those kids. But in August 1987, I left
home to pursue doctoral studies on Canada’s west coast, where I knew no one. I
arrived at the Jericho Hostel on a balmy Vancouver evening with $300 and a UBC
acceptance letter in my pocket. My future, for the first time in a long time, looked
wide open, and I marveled at my luck. At my feet, the taxi driver made a pile of book
bags and suitcases. A teenaged boy shook his head, “Lighten up, lady.” I laughed.
He could not have imagined how light I felt.
By that time, I had taught for 12 years starting in the wonderful barn and winding
up in a small public school. Throughout, I was fascinated by children’s communica-
tion, their approaches to getting along with others, and especially their conversations

48 L. Farr Darling
about right and wrong. Characters in stories we read yielded opportunities to discuss
courage, goodness, and generosity. My interest in philosophy, particularly ethics,
transferred easily to classrooms; I became a student of moral philosophy again by
attending to children’s deliberations. Confronted with sharing resources, or taking
turns, students could be dogmatic, but they often revealed creativity and humor inter-
preting or generating rules. While capable of showing sensitivity, we know children
can also be cruel, so respect and responsibility were core concepts. Vivian Paley’s
fairness rule, “you can’t say you can’t play” (Paley, 1993) was an essential principle.
The longer I watched children learn to live together, the more curious I became
about their moral and social understandings. I was now full of questions and rest-
less for a change. My homesteading experience, romantic in my twenties, now felt
confining, like the close New England landscape. Administrators were increasingly
committed to notions of accountability I found restrictive. My union activism was an
irritant, a small but persistent thorn in their sides. I was easily granted a 2-year study
leave. I had just turned 37, and I was finally looking for an adventure of my own.
When Flo turned 37, she also contemplated further study, this time in history, and
a second master’s, an unusually ambitious aspiration for her time. My father told me
she met with professors and also argued about plans with Vince. She applied in late
1934. While corners of the Depression had lifted, bread lines were long, and soup
kitchens overflowed with hungry families. Billy was a “second former,” growing up
quickly. His view of Vince was unchanged (he refused to call him his stepfather),
and Billy often stayed late at the library, gazing over the broad valley from a top-
floor carrel. He imagined he could see a curve of the Hudson and the grand ship that
would take him far from the dreariness of his Manhattan life.
In May 1935, Flo discovered she was pregnant. Although she loved her work as
Dean of Girls, she had to resign herself to the end of her career and formal study. For
several days, she let out seams or added side panels to dresses, hoping to prolong the
inevitable. She was not sick like she had been with Billy, but she was so tired this
time. In less than a month, her beloved girls would graduate. Most had been with
her for history and English since they were 14, some close as daughters. Surely she
could hide her pregnancy until then, until plans could be made.
Three weeks later, Flo was still able to keep her condition secret. By then she
had told her mentor Solomon that she needed to move on—her son needed a real
home. The gold-plated compact inscribed “Dean Farr” was a gift from faculty and
students, presented on her last day. After 7 years at West Orange High, good-byes
were tearful. I have the yearbook ( West-o-Ranger ) that makes it clear how admired
she was. She was adored by her “girls” whose sentiments are expressed in looped
and rounded script. But Flo was never one to look back. She was eagerly anticipating
the next stage, as a new mother again and a full-time homemaker in a country town
with open skies. Enough time had been spent hiding in a hotel, miles from her
family. Only Flo’s successor Miss Verna Swisher knew the story behind her friend’s
resignation, and she swore secrecy.
Flo and Billy left New York the following week, with the car filled with camping
gear and spare tires. Vince was promised a ranch job by friends from Will and Flo’s
traveling days, so he headed by bus to Carrizo Springs, Texas. Flo had convinced

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 49
Vince that while she still could, she should drive across the country with her son
again. It was to be an epic journey and her most ambitious civics curriculum yet.
They would travel to Grand Teton National Park, new since their years on the
road. After a week they would drive to visit the Howells, wheat farming friends
near Great Falls, Montana. Afterward they would follow Prairie Schooner tracks on
the Oregon Trail and revisit the Columbia River Gorge before the Bonneville Dam
was completed. At the Coast they would drive Route 101 to San Francisco where
the Golden Gate Bridge was under construction. After crossing the strait by ferry,
they would continue to San Diego, where the California Pacific Exhibition was in
full swing. Weaving through the southwest in August, visiting Navajo territory and
ancient mesas, they would arrive in Carrizo Springs in time for Billy to start high
school in late September.
All these plans came true. I have commemorative photographs from the day the
new paved road opened through the Teton. Theirs was one of the first cars, honking
madly, my dad said, probably scaring the daylights out of elk. They returned to
Montana, too. When my sister and I visited her in 1973, Lillian Howell remembered
Flo from that trip, plump but vivacious as ever. Flo and Billy slept in an abandoned
shack on the Missouri River Breaks, cooking meals in the open hearth.
Wire cables for the Golden Gate were spun while Billy and his mother camped
on Mt. Tamalpais. They stayed for 2 weeks, because Flo said, “They’ll never build
the Golden Gate Bridge again.” Dad kept postcards of the San Diego exhibition
with its strange mix of technological marvel and carnival sideshow, including the
“Palace of Transportation” and “Indian Town.” Though children were not allowed,
Flo floated for 15 minutes in a hot air balloon over Balboa Park. It was the closest
she ever got to flying, and she must have thought of Will. In August, they watched
a Grand Canyon sunset from the backs of burros.
My dad spoke glowingly of their triumphant arrival in Carrizo Springs on a
sweltering September day. They drove into the South Texas town during a sud-
den downpour that filled the Nueces River to the top of its banks and poured into
bar ditches. He remembered the two of them laughing and laughing, his mom with
her head out the window catching the blessed rain on her face. “It was,” my father
wrote, “like being in the middle of a Huck Finn adventure ….”
From Flo to Me
As for my own journey, I never returned to my classroom or my hillside home.
I stayed on the west coast to finish my degree and took a position in an educa-
tion faculty on the prairies. That other life simply slipped out of sight. Perhaps
my Grandmother Flo and I have this trait in common, an unsentimental ease with
moving on.
Since 1992, I have taught social studies methods and educational philosophy to
aspiring teachers in four universities. I define social studies as exploration (through
history, geography, and social sciences) of people and practices within various com-
munities, local to global. Importantly, such investigations include political systems,

50 L. Farr Darling
and social studies curriculum grounds my commitment to help teachers create class-
room communities, where democracy is explicitly valued (Farr Darling, 2007). As
a researcher, I am still fascinated by the ways in which children, and all of us, try to
live together, and social studies fits with that enterprise too (Farr Darling, 2006).
I introduce historic artifacts as problems to investigate, asking students to
hypothesize about an object’s origin, purpose, and context (Farr Darling, 2008). I
encourage students to place objects against a backdrop, the significant events, polit-
ical movements, or technological developments of an era. Sometimes I introduce
a handmade tool, an embroidered sampler, or a button hook, and a story unfolds.
We can learn much about history from a single object, like Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
(2001, p. 418) does finding a coverlet or the loom on which it was woven:
Sometimes the most useful insights come from pondering the harnesses and treadles that
move the interlocking threads of daily life. Here the big questions have less to do with
overarching change than with the way ordinary people created meaning out of a world
cross-snarled and twined.
Although I know meanings are captured in the humblest artifacts, my interest has
been pedagogical. Not until I began to discover Flo’s life did I feel the emotional
tug of things that spoke of her, “the mnemonic power of goods” (Ulrich, p. 418)
captured in the hair brush she held or the compact she carried. It started when I
found the photograph of the woman in a rowboat. An upstairs alcove became a tiny
laboratory, my collection covering surfaces and walls alongside magnifying glasses
and maps. I surrounded artifacts with (hopefully) their proper historical settings. I
located Columbia University histories from Flo’s student years. I read writings by
her contemporaries including Dewey. I began to sift through a cloudy, fragmented
past to see the world as she may have, to imagine experiences that shaped her, that
in turn shaped my father, and now me.
Flo has become my Dewey in practice. She is the flesh and blood example of
teaching, learning, and living “permeated by the experimental spirit” (Ryan, 1998,
p. 405). Dewey himself failed to provide such a vibrant portrait, one that breathes
life and feels three-dimensional. For me, Flo represents the ultimate experiential
learner, and the lessons she created for her young son reflect her devotion to contin-
ual exploration, her respect for knowledge, and her passion for full participation in
the world. She followed her questions where they led, tracked down curiosities that
captivated her, and made a lifelong project of discovering who and what she might
become. She imparted to her son, and he to me, a social studies curriculum as broad
and beautifully featured as the Western landscape they both loved.
For Flo, to be a young woman in the early 1900s was to experiment, to envi-
sion a life without existing constraints of gender and class, then to try to make
that life happen in communities you inhabit. You do this for your own sake, she
may have said, but especially for the children you love and teach, for the sake
of their future. The girls of West Orange High saw broader learning landscapes
and more opportunities because of her. So did my father. And so do I. Her belief
that you could transform lives through education remained unshakeable. Intelligent
action could bring about solutions to the most intractable problems. No matter the

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 51
context—reconstructing a life after Will’s death, raising her son to be resourceful
and strong through the Depression, counseling high school girls to dream large,
or pursuing studies at night school—Flo’s message was undiminished by circum-
stance. She communicated hopefulness and a sense of wide-open possibility for
tomorrow.
By the time Flo was old enough to appreciate his ideas, Dewey had, through
works such as Democracy and Education , defined ideal democracy as “a process
of deep and organic communication on free and equal terms” (Ryan, 1998, p. 407).
Flo resolutely kept faith in the democratic experiment that would eventually allow
members of her sex opportunity to speak and act as the intellectual and social equals
of men. A rare democratic spirit inhabited Flo. She convinced me of that through
tracings left behind: her students’ yearbook dedications to her influence, her son’s
abiding belief in the promise that knowledge empowers, and her granddaughter’s
choice of career, one that even now clings to the precarious possibility that together
with a new generation we might remake the world.
We are so much more skeptical now than either Dewey or Flo; it is hard to imag-
ine the harmony and equality they believed possible in a democracy could ever be
realized. Yet the vision is compelling. Like Dewey, Flo was committed to the idea
that no matter where you are, and what circumstances you were born to, you can
make meaning of this life, finding purpose that goes beyond yourself and contributes
to the well-being of others in a way that is distinctively yours (Dewey, 1916/1972c).
In so doing, your accomplishments on earth will not be insignificant, and they will
not be forgotten.
My study of Flo’s life, however incomplete, is simultaneously my self-study,
rooted in a biographical sketch more suggestive than definitive, like an impression-
ist’s drawing with more space than line. Her story (now mine) does not unfold
smoothly like a paper fan, but appears in glimpses, and in cracks between family
legends and official documents that record births, deaths, marriages, and degrees.
As with everyone’s story, mysteries remain. There are oblique and untold tales, like
the heartrending one of a baby girl who only lived for 3 days in 1923. No one even
knows where she is buried.
Within five more years, Flo lost Will, and by 1932, both her parents. How did she
start over after these losses, again and again? Much of her inner life is unknown, and
her second husband, Vince is a ghost. Did regrets haunt her? At what cost did she lie
about her marriage? How did she leave behind the homes she made, the friendships
she cherished, and the professional life she built? How did I? I am equally curious
about her scholarly pursuits. I wonder what motivated her to resist the status quo, to
seek further study, to recreate herself. What notions of progress kept her moving?
What blind spots obscured her view? Are mine similar? I want to understand the
tensions Flo found making her way as a woman who, in her unique style, rattled
doors for women like me to walk through decades later.
There is work ahead; I see my project unfolding as a map on which streams I have
found are pale blue, and rivers they pour into are darker and bolder. More topograph-
ical features will appear as I “excavate” through history, discovering relationships
in forgotten sources (Grumet, 1981, p. 122). Retracing her travels and times, I trace

52 L. Farr Darling
more than lineage from my Grandmother Flo to me; there are links between us as
animated teachers and persistent learners, each with a dreamer’s stubborn view of
equality and opportunity running through our curricula, through our social studies.
On the trail that links us and continues on, are footprints of my teaching journey
from New England to British Columbia, Saskatchewan to Oregon, then back again
to Canada, evidence of familiar, if latent restlessness that originated with Flo. Her
days on the road with Will and Sonny became my days of wandering too. Since his
death, my father’s childhood memories walk with me. And alongside my footprints,
there are sepia shadows of passions that belonged to Florence Fisher Farr, carried
forward to the granddaughter she may have imagined would one day find them and
make them her own.
References
Cole, A., & Knowles, G. (1995). Methods and issues in a life history approach to self-study.
In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher
education (pp. 130–154). London: Falmer Press.
Crocco, M. S., Munro, P., & Weiler, K. (1999). Pedagogies of resistance: Women educator activists,
1880–1960 . New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2005). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms
1890–1990 . (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1972a). My pedagogic creed. In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The early works
(pp. 84–87). Carbondale, IL: Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1896)
Dewey, J. (1972b). How we think. In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The early works. Carbondale,
IL: Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1910)
Dewey, J. (1972c) Democracy and education. In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works.
Carbondale, IL: Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1916)
Farr Darling, L. (2008) Learning the art of inquiry through artifacts. In R. Case & P. Clark (Eds.),
Canadian anthology of social studies (2nd ed.). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Education Press.
Farr Darling, L. (2007) Introduction to CITE: A community of inquiry. In L. Farr Darling,
G. Erickson, & A. Clarke (Eds.), Collective improvisation in a teacher education community
(pp. 1–8). Dordrecht: Springer.
Farr Darling, L. (2006) Teaching social studies as if it mattered. In W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies
curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities. (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning . New York: Teachers College Press.
Grumet, M. (1981). Restitution and reconstruction of educational experience: An autobiographical
method for curriculum inquiry. In M. Lawn & L. Barton (Eds.), Rethinking curriculum studies:
A radical approach (pp. 115–130). London: Croom Helm.
Grumet, M. (1991). Curriculum and the art of daily life. In G. Willis & W. H. Schubert (Eds.),
Reflections from the heart of educational inquiry: Understanding curriculum and teaching
through the arts (pp. 74–89). New York: State University of New York Press.
Harrison, R. P. (2009, March 12). A passion for nature: The life of John Muir. The New York Review
of Books, LVI (4), 20–23.
Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth annual report of Horace Mann as Secretary of Massachusetts State Board
of education.
Olds, E. F. (1985). Women of the four winds: The adventures of four of America’s first women
explorers . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Paley, V . (1993). You can’t say you can’t play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peck, A. S. (1911). A search for the apex of America, high mountain climbing in Peru and Bolivia
including the conquest of Huascaran, with some observations on the country and people below .
New York: Dodd, Mead.

3 Looking Glass on the Dresser: Finding Florence Fisher Farr 53
Pinar, W. (1994). The method of currere. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Autobiography, politics and sexuality:
Essays in curriculum theory, 1972–1992 (pp. 19–27). New York: Peter Lang.
Rich, A. (1979). Lies, secrets, and silence. New York: Norton.
Ryan, A. (1995). John Dewey and the high tide of American Liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton.
Ryan, A. (1998). Deweyan pragmatism and American education. In A. Rorty (Ed.), Philosophers
on education: New historical perspectives (pp. 394–410). London: Routledge.
Strong-Wilson, T. (2006). Re-visioning one’s narratives: Exploring the relationship between
researcher self-study and teacher research. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study
of Teacher Education Practices, 2 (1), 59–76.
Strong-Wilson, T. (2008) Bringing memory forward: Storied remembrance in social justice
education with teachers . New York: Peter Lang.
Ulrich, L. T. (2001). The age of homespun: Objects and stories in the creation of an American
Myth . New York: Alfred Knopf.
Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change: Gender, class and power. South Hadley, MA:
Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

Chapter 4
Self-Study Methodology as a Means Toward
Ongoing Rationale Development
and Refinement
Todd S. Hawley
Rationale development, as a core theme of social studies teacher education, has
received renewed attention in recent years (Hawley, 2010). Simultaneously, interest
in and the use of self-study as a methodology for researching and reframing teaching
and teacher education has also increased (Loughran, 2007; Russell, 2007). Despite
similar approaches and goals for improving social studies teaching and learning,
both exist in relative isolation, or at least in quiet conversation. As part of this quiet
conversation, social studies teacher educators have been using self-study methods
and methodology to examine the process of improving their practice as teacher edu-
cators (Dinkelman, 2003; Dinkelman, Margolis, & Sikkenga, 2006a, 2006b; Powell
& Hawley, 2009; Ritter, 2007, 2009; Ritter, Powell, & Hawley, 2007, 2008). As the
chapters in this book demonstrate, the conversation is not only growing louder, it is
creating a collaborative spirit among social studies teacher educators who share a
common interest in rethinking their own practice, pedagogy, and decision making.
They are also making their research public as part of adding their voices, experi-
ences, and research findings to the growing dialogue focused on attempts to improve
the process of social studies teacher education.
As part of joining this conversation, this chapter begins with an exploration of
the evolution of thinking about rationale development in social studies, and of self-
study as a methodology to structure and expand the possibilities of ongoing rationale
development and refinement. As this section demonstrates, both offer social stud-
ies teachers and teacher educators a means to structure their attempts to improve
their own practice, and social studies education as a whole. After discussing the
literature on rationale development and self-study methodology, I draw on find-
ings from a recent self-study to argue that the utilization of self-study methodology
provides the necessary structure, and a unique opportunity, to examine the con-
nections between the process of ongoing rationale development and refinement,
and subsequent rationale-based practices of teachers and teacher educators. After
T.S. Hawley (B)
Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies (TLC), Kent State University,
404 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA
e-mail: thawley1@kent.edu
55 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_4, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

56 T.S. Hawley
an exploration of the ways in which I reconsidered and reframed my thinking in
my developing rationale, I conclude by building an argument for linking rationale
development and self-study as a natural next step for teacher educators interested in
rationale-based teaching and learning in social studies classrooms.
Rationale Development and Social Studies: Flashback
to the 1970s
Within the social studies literature, the development of rationale development can
be traced back to the work of Shaver (1977), Newmann (1970, 1977), and Shaver
and Strong (1982). Together, they each assisted in providing the groundwork for
rationale development as a core theme of social studies teacher education pro-
grams. Much of this work began when Shaver (1977) edited a bulletin for the
National Council for the Social Studies entitled, Building Rationales for Citizenship
Education . The work of Shaver, Newman, and Shaver and Strong positioned ratio-
nale development as a process of personal examination through which teachers
could reframe their thinking about the purposes guiding their practices as social
studies teachers.
While there has been little research conducted on the process of rationale devel-
opment and the influences of rationales on teaching practice, interest in the process
of rationale development as a core theme in social studies teacher education is
beginning to grow (Hawley, 2010). This section is designed to provide an overview
of Shaver, Newmann, and Shaver and Strong’s thinking about the nature and pur-
pose of rationale development followed by an examination of current thinking about
rationale development, and the power of purpose in social studies teacher education.
As part of articulating a definition of, and purpose for, rationale development,
Shaver (1977) was adamant that the process of rationale development was not
designed to create a one-size-fits-all approach, nor a mandated curriculum for
citizenship education. As he put it,
This bulletin on citizenship education, as its title suggests, does not propose a philosophy for
citizenship education nor a set of prescriptions for a citizenship education program. Instead,
the intent has been to involve social studies educators, teachers and supervisors in particular,
in re-examining the assumptions underlying their curricular and teaching decisions, and in
looking at the citizenship implications of what actually happens in their classrooms and
schools. (p. vi)
Drawing on Beard (1934), Shaver defined rationale-building
As the process of making clear and examining the beliefs in one’s frame of reference—
beliefs about what the world has been, is, will be, can be, and should be like—the influence,
consciously or not, of his or her behavior as a teacher. (p. 97)
Shaver’s (1977) concern for rationale development as a thoughtful reflective
approach to professional and pedagogical decision making originated from his frus-
tration with traditional approaches to social studies teacher education. As Shaver
saw it, social studies teacher education programs were too focused on “the ‘doing,’

4 Self-Study Methodology: Rationale Development and Refinement 57
active part of teaching—on stating objectives and preparing lesson plans, on how to
use textbooks and conduct discussions, on new materials and programs available for
use” (p. 97). Indeed, Shaver realized that each of these components were important,
yet had been promoted “at the detriment of philosophical concerns” (p. 97).
Rationale-building, according to Shaver, could expand the power of teaching stu-
dents to develop lesson plans and to lead discussion by simultaneously allowing
teacher candidates to consider powerful philosophical questions of purpose (e.g.,
What are the assumptions underlying the use of behavioral objectives, of textbooks,
of differing discussion styles, or of a new program or set of materials?). Without
considering these questions and the assumptions underlying them, Shaver recog-
nized teacher candidates miss an opportunity to approach teaching as a process of
constantly examining purpose and practice.
Newmann’s (1977) attempt to develop a definition for a comprehensive rationale
focused more on the process of, as well as the intellectual and ethical reasons for,
rationale development. For Newmann, a rationale is “the vehicle through which the
educator justifies to the community at large his or her use of the power that the
community has delegated to institutions for formal education” (p. 31). As part of
exercising their intellectual and ethical obligations, Newmann realized that teachers
who develop a rationale might not improve their practice or create a better experi-
ence for students. While aiming for improvement, Newmann was more interested in
the process as an ethical practice. As he saw it,
Any particular rationale may have the effect of enhancing or reducing the power of the
educator; it may lead to actual improvement or deterioration in the education of youth.
Regardless of their effects, however, educators have an intellectual and ethical obligation to
build more comprehensive rationales. (p. 31)
Shaver (1977) outlined four main reasons why teachers should develop a
comprehensive rationale for teaching social studies. These reasons are
(1)Personal Growth . Shaver recognized that the process of “rationale-building is
not just a process likeeducation; it iseducation” (emphasis in original, pp.
102–103). Personal growth is important and meaningful when “the emphasis
is on growth through the person’s own attempts to understand and evolve, and
not on impositions from outside or the rejection of self” (pp. 102–103).
(2)Professional autonomy . Shaver understood that professional autonomy devel-
oped as a result of the reflective nature of rationale development. According
to Shaver, the process of constantly reflecting on pedagogical and professional
decision making “can help to liberate one not only from bias and conventional
wisdom, but from unthinking or irresolute reliance on the decisions of textbook
writers and other curriculum developers and on the models of teaching one has
experienced as student” (p. 103).
(3)Examining the “hidden curriculum .”Shaver saw rationale development as a
way to examine and evaluate “the unintended school experiences from which
students learn, with the outcomes often counter-productive in terms of the
commonly stated goals of citizenship education” (p. 103).

58 T.S. Hawley
(4)Building community relations and program support . Shaver believed that
teachers had an obligation to open up their classrooms and their curricular
decision making to the scrutiny of parents and other members of the com-
munity. According to Shaver (1977), the goal of administrators and teachers
should be to “encourage involvement, even—or especially—among those who
might object to school practices rather than trying to discourage or avoid such
participation” (p. 104).
Newmann (1977), as part of addressing skeptics of the potential of rationales
to improve the practice of social studies teachers, articulated three reasons why
comprehensive rationales were necessary. Newmann’s reasons were
First, educators have an intellectual responsibility to try and understand what they are doing
and why. Second, sound rationales do offer some, albeit insufficient, practical assistance in
narrowing the options as to what and how to teach. Third, persons wielding power through
state-supported institutions have an ethical responsibility to justify their actions. (emphasis
in original, p. 30)
Newmann also added a fourth reason why rationale development is an important
process for teachers. He recognized that “a comprehensive rationale will also sug-
gest directions for future work on how to organize and teach specific curricula”
(p. 30).
Shaver and Strong (1982), in many ways echoing Newmann’s (1977) ethical
stance on rationale development, saw two main reasons for comprehensive rationale
development. The main reason individual teachers should develop a comprehensive
rationale “is to avoid the unthinking imposition of your beliefs on your students”
(p. 10). Their second reason, again echoing the previous work of Shaver (1977)
and Newmann (1977), took a more pragmatic stance toward rationale development
suggesting teachers must develop “a systematic, well-grounded basis from which
to explain, even defend your instructional behavior to administrators and parents”
(p. 10).
A final part of the work of developing the purpose and process of rationale
development, Shaver (1977), Newmann (1977), and Shaver and Strong (1982)
each articulated their belief that the process of rationale development was always
ongoing, potentially unsettling, ultimately impossible to complete and, yet, profes-
sionally fulfilling. As I explore later in this chapter, much of this thinking mirrors
many aspects of self-study. Although they never referred to themselves as self-study
researchers, or even advocates, their thinking would certainly find a happy home in
the world of self-study.
Addressing the complex, and potentially unsettling, nature of rationale develop-
ment, Shaver (1977) recognized how
The task of rationale-building, is, then, not only difficult, but never-ending. Moreover, it can
have serious implications for the tranquility of one’s professional life, for the examination
of beliefs in one’s frame of reference and of the implications for teaching will frequently
lead even the most thoughtful (or, perhaps, especially the most thoughtful) to conclude
that parts of what he or she is doing as a teacher cannot be justified, and so much be
changed. …Some changes will be relatively easy; some may be difficult, especially those

4 Self-Study Methodology: Rationale Development and Refinement 59
that call for reassessment of one’s basic mode of interrelating with young people. Some
may require careful self-analysis; some may be dependent on acquiring resources from the
school administration; some may necessitate professional help, such as may be available in
inservice courses dealing with different discussion techniques. But it is not likely that the
genuine analysis involved in rationale-building will leave your professional life untouched.
(p. 102)
Shaver and Strong (1982) argued that the process of rationale development is never
finished or fixed. Their thinking about rationale development highlighted their belief
in the need for teachers to engage in an ongoing process of self-exploration. As they
saw it,
A rationale, like the person who is attempting to develop it, evolves and is always in the
process of becoming. Your rationale may become more explicit, more comprehensive, more
logical in the interrelationship of its parts, clearer in its implications for your behavior as a
teacher. But it ought never to be considered final, for that would imply that you have stopped
changing and growing. (p. 10)
Together, the work of Shaver (1977) and Shaver and Strong (1982), highlight the
complex, ongoing nature of rationale development and the potential for the process
to disrupt the habits and decision making of even the most veteran teachers. The
process of rationale development is, as Newmann (1977) reminds us, an ethical
justification that “must be grounded in universal principles of justice, human dignity,
equality, and not merely in a self-interested attempt to enhance one’s power over
others” (p. 31).
Rationale Development and Social Studies: A New Generation
Picking up where Shaver and Strong left off, a new generation of social studies
teacher educators are once again focused on the possibilities of rationale devel-
opment and the power of purpose within teacher education (e.g. Barton & Levstik,
2004; Dinkelman, 2009; Hawley, 2010; Thornton, 2006). Barton and Levstik (2004)
acknowledged that without “a sense of purpose that is clearly thought out and articu-
lated, teachers may fall prey to each new fad or harebrained instructional program, or
they may find themselves adopting the practices of their peers by default” (p. 255).
For Dinkelman (2009), the development of a rationale extends beyond a philosoph-
ical statement written to gain admission into a teacher education program. Instead,
a rationale developed throughout a teacher education program can be a “practical,
vital statement of the aims that direct the very real deliberations teachers engage in
as they sort out questions of what is worth knowing and how best to teach it” (p. 2).
Barton and Levstik (2004) argued that if teacher educators wish to shape the
classroom practices of teachers they must work to help develop the purposes guiding
teachers’ day-to-day practices. Rationale development, however, must be more than
just another method presented to teacher candidates. As Barton and Levstik (2004)
pointed out, rationale development “must be more than a slogan, and it must be
more than lip service; it must be a goal to which teachers are deeply and genuinely

60 T.S. Hawley
committed, a goal that will inspire efforts to make actions consistent with beliefs”
(pp. 258–259). They argue that the development of participatory, democratic cit-
izens has the most potential among the various and competing goals to animate
reform practices in teacher education. They claim such a rationale empowers teach-
ers to move beyond teaching for content coverage and gaining control over their
students—the two goals they believe account for the tepid and unengaging forms of
instruction so prevalent in contemporary classrooms (p. 258).
Thornton (2006), drawing on Barton and Levstik (2004), contended that effec-
tive history teachers incorporate a strong sense of purpose into their pedagogical
decision making. He supports the assertion that “teacher’s purposes matter more
and in a different way from assembling a standardized product” and that “teachers’
purposes, then, guide how far they open the curricular-instructional gate; for whom,
when, and which gates to what they open; how they react to collegial norms on the
foregoing, and so forth” (p. 418). Together, Barton and Levstik (2004), Dinkelman
(2009), and Thornton (2006) have made a strong case for the establishing ratio-
nale development as a key component in the process of social studies teacher
education.
Self-Study Methodology
Writing about self-study as a methodology, Berry and Crowe (2009) recognized
the potential for self-study to present “a framework for inquiry into one’s beliefs
and practices as an educator with a focus on better understanding the interaction
between beliefs and practices for the improvement of teaching and learning” (p. 85).
Their work builds on Pinnegar’s (1998) conception of self-study methodology as an
attempt to understand the influence of both the researcher’s context on her/his prac-
tice and the researcher’s practice on her/his context. For Pinnegar, “self-study is not
a collection of particular methods but instead a methodology for studying profes-
sional practice settings” (p. 33). Pinnegar’s writing, and theorizing about self-study
as a methodology, coincides with Brandenburg’s (2009) point that an “increasing
understanding of teacher education conducted within the context of teacher educa-
tion by teacher educators has been, and continues to be, a distinguishing feature of
self-study” (p. 196).
LaBoskey (2007) expanded on Pinnegar’s (1998) work by developing and
defining five principle characteristics of self-study research. LaBoskey’s five key
characteristics were designed to position researchers to produce findings that would
be accepted as trustworthy. The five characteristics are (1) self-initiated and self-
focused; (2) improvement aimed; (3) interactive at one or more points during the
process; (4) the study draws data from a variety of (generally qualitative) sources;
and (5) validity is defined as a validation process based on trustworthiness. Notably,
Tidwell, Heston, and Fitzgerald (2009) highlighted that “while drawing heavily on
traditional qualitative methods of data collection, self-study generally transforms
those methods by taking them into a new context and using them in ways that
often depart from the traditional” (p. xiii). These transformations, they asserted,

4 Self-Study Methodology: Rationale Development and Refinement 61
“highlight the fact that the role of the researcher in self-study and the role of teacher
educator are closely intertwined and generally inseparable” (p. viii).
Bringing Two Worlds Together
As I argued earlier in this chapter, and as the chapters in this book demonstrate,
social studies teacher educators are starting to recognize the potential for connecting
their work with the commitments and possibilities of self-study methodology. This
is surprisingly true for teacher educators interested in the possibilities of rationale
development as a core theme of social studies teacher education. At the heart of both
worlds is a concern for the moral and ethical commitments teachers and teacher
educators should hold for their work, as well as a strong belief in the power of
collaboration to both sustain and support those involved in these, often unsettling
processes.
Writing about reasons why teacher educators engage in self-study research,
Bullough and Pinnegar (2007) pointed out how most teacher educators are as con-
cerned with preparing “committed teachers as we are to studying our own work in
order to understand it and get better at it. In this way, our political engagement in
the research and practice of teacher education is morally grounded” (p. 324). At the
heart of their argument is the recognition that engaging in self-study research forces
teacher educators to confront their moral and ethical obligations to students and
to the larger teacher education community. For Bullough and Pinnegar, “self-study
demands a deep moral commitment to inquiry that connects the past in the present
to imagine a new future in the concrete reality of a single teacher educator, as well
as new possibilities for teacher education collectively” (p. 325).
The process of explicitly examining one’s practice provides a framework for
teachers interested in improving their own practice as part of contributing to a
larger conversation on the process of teacher education. Writing about reasons why
teachers should develop a comprehensive rationale, Newmann (1970), argued that a
well-articulated rationale for teaching and learning is “more than an intellectual rit-
ual for the amusement of academics; it becomes a social duty owned to the citizenry
at large” (p. 10). Newmann’s recognition that rationale development was an ethical
and moral act of citizenship on the part of social studies teachers echoes Bullough
and Pinnegar’s (2007) call for a moral stance on the part of teacher educators. Shaver
(1977) realized that the process of rationale development must be self-imposed.
Like LaBoskey (2007), Shaver pointed out that, rationale development, “an essen-
tial beginning point is the recognition that rationale-building cannot be imposed
productively” (p. 106). Teachers interested in developing rationales must recognize
the potential purpose holds for their practice. If simply forced, they will see the pro-
cess of rationale development as a hoop to jump through as part of completing their
teacher education coursework.
Collaboration is a distinguishing feature of self-study research (Bodone,
Guðjónsdóttir, & Dalmau, 2007; Kitchen & Parker, 2009; Lighthall, 2007).
Collaboration, as Shaver (1977) highlighted, is a necessary part of improving the

62 T.S. Hawley
process of rationale development. Collaboration, as part of the process of ongo-
ing rationale development and refinement, makes the tough, unsettling work more
bearable and more likely to be improvement aimed. For Shaver,
A “community,” even if it contains only two people, is necessary to provide the support
that most of us need to engage in the exhilarating but often excruciating process of self-
analysis and development. Shared commitments, the comfort from knowing that others are
having the same difficulties as you in grappling with fundamental questions, the mutual
reinforcement for rationale-building behavior are important community functions. (p. 109)
This vision of collaboration to strengthen the process of rationale development is
reminiscent of LaBoskey’s (2007) recommendation that collaboration be a natural
part of the process self-study research, and in turn making the results of self-studies
more trustworthy.
Examining the Ongoing Development and Refinement of My
Rationale: A Self-Study
This self-study originated formally as part of the formation of a self-study collec-
tive I helped organize with Alicia Crowe and four graduate students at Kent State
University (see Hawley, Crowe, Knapp, Hostetler, Ashkettle, & Levicky, Chapter
11 this volume). I believe that I have always been committed to examining the influ-
ences on, continual development of, and process of reframing of the ideas guiding
my work as a social studies teacher educator. However, until this study, my research
with the process of rationale development and rationale-based practices has involved
working with others. Much of my work as a graduate assistant at the University of
Georgia focused on teaching undergraduate social studies courses and observing
student teachers. In this role, I was involved with helping students develop their
initial rationales during their coursework (Powell & Hawley, 2009) and to super-
vise their attempts to put their rationales into practice as student teachers (Ritter,
Powell, & Hawley, 2007, 2008). My dissertation research focused on the problems
and possibilities of the rationale-based practices of three first-year social studies
teachers (Hawley, 2008). Again, this work focused on the ability of teachers to put
their rationales, developed as teacher candidates, into practice (Hawley, 2010).
The study explained here was my first attempt to examine my own developing
rationale. As a first-year assistant professor at Kent State University, I was fortunate
enough to have the opportunity to join together with Alicia Crowe to form a research
collective designed to examine our work as teachers and teacher educators. Finally
the chance had arrived for me to examine my own ongoing rationale development.
As part of the collective, I focused my study on the following research question:
(1) How does the process of planning for, and teaching, an undergraduate social
studies methods course and a graduate-level social studies seminar influence
my developing rationale for my work as a social studies teacher educator?

4 Self-Study Methodology: Rationale Development and Refinement 63
As the semester progressed, I began to also focus my journals and discus-
sions with the self-study collective on the potential connections between self-study
methodology and the process of ongoing rationale development and refinement.
Data Collection and Analysis
As part of my process of examining the influence of my practice as a teacher
educator on my rationale—including course planning, course readings, classroom
discussions, interactions with individual students, and my decision-making process
while teaching—I followed LaBoskey’s (2007) principles and focused my efforts
on collecting data from a wide variety of sources. Data sources for this study
included my original rationale, course syllabi from the two courses I taught dur-
ing the spring semester 2009, course blog posts, emails sent to my undergraduate
class after each course session, personal journal entries, personal notes taken during
self-study research meetings, transcripts from the audio taped research meetings,
a lesson plan guide I developed as part of my role leading a summer institute for
social studies teachers, and my rationale at the end of June 2009. Together, these
data sources were collected to help make sense of the continued reframing and
refinement of my rationale as a social studies teacher educator, as well as add to
the trustworthiness of the research findings (Mishler, 1990). Trustworthiness, here,
is seen as a process of also making findings available to, and meaningful for, other
social studies teacher educators.
The process of data analysis was ongoing throughout the spring semester 2009
including the six scheduled meetings of a collaborative self-study research collec-
tive. These collaborative meetings enabled me to begin the process of data analysis
and to openly explore my thinking about how the data were influencing my thinking
about my developing rationale and later the connections between self-study method-
ology and the work of rationale-building. This collaborative process enabled me to
make my thinking about data analysis visible and more concrete for myself, and the
group. After the semester and the research meetings ended, I began a more formal
process of data analysis that involved reading through my data sources and making
connections between the data sources and my research questions. For this chapter I
specifically focused on two data sources—my posts to the blog I developed as part
of the graduate-level seminar course and my email responses following each of my
undergraduate methods course sessions.
Findings
Beginning with Praise as Part of Attempting to Push Students
to Think Differently
At the beginning of the semester I was committed to the ideas of my rationale. I
was also committed to creating a space for students to openly engage in democratic

64 T.S. Hawley
dialogue while deliberating about the major issues facing social studies teachers.
While analyzing the blog posts I made in the graduate-level social studies course,
I noticed that my attempts to push students’ thinking usually began with praise.
Embracing a process of praising students before pushing them to think differently
has never been an explicit part of my rationale. In reading the following excerpt
from my class blog, it is obvious that I felt the need to begin my response with
praise before pushing the student to reconsider his initial thoughts.
This is a very nice post. It has me returning to the article and really forcing me to think out
the reconstructionist argument. Good Stuff. …I also understand your position that it might
turn students off from being active. This is where I think teachers have to provide outlets
for students to act on their knowledge. So, if they learn about lobbyists, then students could
learn how they can also influence the legislative process, or work to balance the power
relationships involved. I also agree that teachers have to be aware that the students will
get other sides of the story in other settings (classes, at home, church, friends parents). My
reading of the reconstructionist argument is that they want to produce citizens who are active
in that they want to open up the system to expose the inequalities that exist to improve the
system for all. I wonder how this is making you think about the reconstructionist argument
now? (Blog post, 1/28/2009)
I recognize my many ideas from my rationale in my post. My rationale has always
reflected my desire to make social studies classrooms spaces where students can
learn content and have a chance to act on their new knowledge. In this case, I wanted
to demonstrate that students should have the opportunity to learn about lobbyists and
how they attempt to influence the legislative process, and then be given a chance to
do something with their knowledge.
As the semester progressed, I continued to use praise as part of pushing students
to reconsider their initial positions. However, as the following blog post demon-
strates, my attempts to push students became more explicit and were designed to
push students even further than they thought they might take their own practice.
This is evident in my response to a student searching for examples of heroes from
the Civil Rights movement.
So happy to see you wading into the conversation, I appreciate you jumping in and asking
such tough questions without putting your students down and saying that they cannot be
engaged. Instead, I hear you saying that you are trying to get them engaged but worry
that there are not enough good examples out there. I am convinced that all students can
be engaged by courageous, hardworking, activist, and everyday people, who represent a
version of history that is anything but white. Also, all students can learn from the example
of Black, Chinese, Native American, Hispanic, Irish—just to name a few—and it is our job
to find ways to use these examples to engage students …I want to push you to see more
than a handful of examples of heroes from the Civil Rights Movement and to expand out
to include those who spoke out when there was no movement, who fought slavery, who
survived slavery, who are leaders today, who might not fit the mold of the hero you speak
of. They, might, however, be figures, historic examples that can help engage your students.
(Blog post, 3/3/2009)
What has not been an explicit part of my rationale is a desire to directly push stu-
dents to reconsider their initial thinking. Furthermore, the use of praise as a means
to positioning students to possibly re-evaluate their initial stance is an interesting
realization for me. I would argue that this is something that I have always done, but

4 Self-Study Methodology: Rationale Development and Refinement 65
I have never been as aware of it as I am now after reading through my responses
to students in the class blog. As designed, this study does not provide me with any
insight into the influence it had on the students’ thinking about their work as social
studies teachers. However, it leaves me thinking more deeply about my own work
as a teacher educator committed to the work of rationale development.
Renewing My Focus on the Pedagogy of the Process
As part of my work teaching undergraduate methods courses at the University of
Georgia I became interested in the idea that learning social studies content, and
learning to be a social studies teacher, should focus as much on the process of
learning as the content. While working with Dave Powell to examine our com-
bined efforts to teach two related social studies methods and curriculum courses,
we discussed an idea—The Pedagogy of the Process (Powell & Hawley, 2009).
The pedagogy of the process, as we conceptualized it, asked our teacher candidates
to consider what their students were learning other than the specific content they
were attempting to teach them. More specifically, what were students learning from
the process of learning the content. This idea has become a more integrated part
of my teaching rationale. This study reinforced and demonstrated the depth of that
commitment.
This commitment to making the pedagogy of the process part of my work with
teacher candidates is visible in many of my email responses to my undergraduate
methods class at Kent State. These email responses were sent to students following
each class session and were designed to model my thinking and decision making
both in planning for class and while teaching. Initially this was conceived as a way to
model my thinking and to work on chipping away at the influence of the “apprentice-
ship of observation” (Lortie, 2002) on their thinking about the process of becoming
a strong teacher. While analyzing my email responses I quickly noticed that much
of my focus was also placed on reinforcing my belief in focusing on the process
of teaching social studies content. Also highlighted in many of these responses are
many of the central themes of my initial rationale: listening, discussion, deliberation,
and collaboration.
As the following excerpts demonstrate, my focus on the pedagogy of the pro-
cess was a central focus of my responses to my undergraduate methods students.
Responding to the second class session, I introduced the idea of the pedagogy of the
process saying,
First, I should say that I am going on the assumption that everything we do in class can be
done in a middle and high school classroom. Having said that, I do not begin the semester
thinking that I have to wait so long before I can put you in groups or that you are not ready
for certain types of lessons. I also know in advance that there is as much “teaching” that has
to take place when students are “learning” to work in groups, to talk to each other in certain
ways, or whatever you are trying to accomplish. I also want us to think about the ways you
are having students learn (the process) as part of the content. I am working on calling this
“The Pedagogy of the Process.” I like to ask “what are your students learning other than
the content that you were trying to teach them?” This could be how to work in groups, how

66 T.S. Hawley
to talk to someone different from themselves, or how to take on the position of someone
you would never assume OR it could be that it is ok to do other homework in class, to paint
your nails, to sleep, to text, that the teacher will go off on tangents if you just ask the right
questions. (Email response, 1/26/2009)
Responding to the sixth class session, I again focused on the pedagogy of the pro-
cess as part of a larger critique of my decision-making process. In the first paragraph
of my response I highlighted how
I have to continue to make sure that I am structuring the process so that it does engage
more people as part of learning the content from the readings, as well as the content I am
also trying to teach you related to how to have certain types of conversations, how to listen
to each other, and how to learn to reach a deeper meaning by working together. This is
what I am thinking about when I talk about the pedagogy of the process. (Email response,
2/9/2009)
Again, analyzing my attempts to address my desire to have my teacher candidates
focus on the process as content has me thinking that I know very little about the
influence these reflections had on my students’ thinking. There were several students
who responded to my emails; however, at this point I have no way to know how it
will become part of their approach to teaching social studies. This work does make
me more aware of just how much of my rationale is part of my practice. This is
valuable knowledge as I move forward with thinking about improving my work in
my undergraduate methods courses.
Finding Room for Improvement
While I am happy to recognize areas where my practice has explicitly focused on the
central themes of my developing rationale, data analysis revealed room for improve-
ment. By improvement I mean that there are central themes of my rationale that I am
committed to, yet do not explicitly appear in my practice. This is especially true of
my desire to frame part of my undergraduate methods course on the ideas of cultur-
ally relevant pedagogy and placed-based education. Analyzing the course syllabus
indicated that I only included one reading that helped them explicitly examine their
work as curriculum developers for racist undertones (Pinar, 1993). I am very aware
that I still have much work to do to make these ideas a more explicit part of the
teaching and learning in my courses. Reading through my email responses, I did not
see enough attention to culturally relevant pedagogy or placed-based teaching and
learning. Typically, my responses were focused on promoting a focus on process
as well as on how to integrate listening, deliberation, and collaboration into social
studies teaching and learning.
As the following email response following our fourth class session reveals, I
leave out any discussion of possible ways to leverage students’ culture or sense of
place as part of creating an engaging classroom environment.
Most of my happiness comes from the fact that we struggled a bit, that there were some
silences, and that most people eventually felt comfortable to jump in. I was also happy with
many of the ideas that we were able to bring to life in that discussion. I want for us to think

4 Self-Study Methodology: Rationale Development and Refinement 67
more about who is participating in the discussion and who is not, how we are listening to
each other and building from previous comments to push the discussion in new ways, and
how discussions are not just something that happen and that working on creating engaging
discussions is something that (in my opinion) can be taught but will usually be messy at first.
I am hoping that our class can be a space for you to experience that messiness as a student
so you can work on putting similar discussions into place in your own lesson planning and
classrooms. (Email response, 2/2/2009)
Rereading this email response I am aware of how easy it would have been to include
issues of culture and place. While stressing the importance of listening and of focus-
ing on which students are participating in discussions, I could easily have included a
few ideas to encourage teacher candidates to consider how the culture of their class-
room might make the process of having discussion more engaging. As I continue to
analyze this data, and collaborate with my social studies colleagues, I will work to
make these themes more explicit in the content and process of my courses.
Discussion
As a teacher educator I am committed to positioning teacher candidates to thought-
fully consider the idea that the process of learning social studies content matters.
Until embarking on a self-study of my own practice as a teacher educator, how-
ever, I had never fully considered the implications self-study could have on my own
ongoing rationale development and refinement. As I mentioned earlier, I studied my
practice working with teacher candidates and how my written feedback enabled and
constrained their ability to develop as social studies teachers. In this study, however,
I was finally able to examine my own rationale-based practices during my first year
as an assistant professor at Kent State. As the findings section demonstrates, my
blog posts and email responses reveal a commitment to several central themes of
my rationale in my practice, a reliance on using praise as part of pushing students
to reconsider their positions, and an explicit attempt to position students to see the
value of focusing on process as content. I am also now aware that there is much room
for improvement regarding my attempts to make culturally relevant pedagogy and
placed-based teaching and learning central to the content and process of my courses.
At the beginning of the study I was not fully convinced that sending email reflec-
tions to my undergraduate students could actually become a learning experience.
I have plenty of experience deleting emails I receive, and worried that my stu-
dents would do the same. I also worried that I would just become a preacher or
cheerleader for my approaches to social studies teacher education in a way that
would turn the students off. I was much more confident that the course blog would
become a space to interact with, and push my graduate students to think more deeply
about conceptions of citizenship education. I am disappointed that I do not know
more about how the students experienced the emails or blog responses. That is
another study for another day. I am convinced that using structured reflections to
examining rationale-based practices, as well as my ongoing rationale development,
and refinement has much to offer social studies teachers and teacher educators.

68 T.S. Hawley
Concluding Thoughts
Exploring the literature on rationale development in social studies and on self-study
as a methodology leaves me wanting more. More work is needed that brings these
two worlds together. Continuing to explore the potential for developing purpose-
ful rationales that influence, and possibly, improve social studies teacher education
is made considerably stronger when connected to self-study methodology. Despite
the growing conversation and potential of such work, we need more open dia-
logue regarding two questions related to rationale development. First, how are social
studies teacher educators, committed to rationale development as a core theme, posi-
tioning students to see rationale development as more than just a theoretical hoop to
jump through? Second, in what ways are social studies teacher educators drawing
on their own rationales as part of developing their courses? Heilman’s (2009) edited
volume is a good first step, however much more work is needed that provides insight
into the purposes that are driving the practices of social studies teacher educators.
Drawing on commitments from the self-study world, social studies teacher edu-
cators should begin to publicly model their own attempts to develop their rationales
for several important reasons. First, teacher educators should be willing to model
the type of work we ask our students to complete. In this case, if we are going to
ask our students to develop rationales then we should be willing to examine our
own purposes as part of continuing to rethink and reframe our practice as teacher
educators. As Shaver (1977) recognized, teacher educators should provide details of
their own developing rationale “as an object for critiquing, and even as a potential
point of departure for the formulation of other rationales” (p. 108). Without such
modeling, teacher candidates might dismiss the process of rationale development as
too theoretical. Secondly, teacher educators should make their work public as part of
building a conversation about the complexities of social studies teacher education.
Questions about the structure, content, and process of teacher education should not
be discussed in isolation from others in the field.
Loughran (2006) offered a solution to both problems. Regarding the perceived
disconnect between theory and practice within teacher education programs, he
encouraged teacher educators to create situations where the relationship between
professional knowledge and professional practice is examined as part of the process
of learning to teach. To do so, Loughran challenges “teacher educators to carefully
consider the nature of their own knowledge of teaching and to begin to clarify the
role that it does, and should, play in their own conceptualization and practice in
teaching about teaching” (p. 46). Through the practice of openly modeling their
own rationale-based practices, educating teachers might enable teacher candidates
to begin their first year in the classroom with a greater sense of how to make the
ideas of their rationale part of their practice (Loughran, 1996).
Social studies teacher educators interested in the process of rationale devel-
opment and refinement have much to gain by structuring their work on the
methodology of self-study. Both worlds are committed to infusing teacher educa-
tion with a moral and ethical stance toward preparing teachers. Both recognize the
power of collaboration to make the potentially unsettling work of examining your
own practice more tolerable and thoughtful. Both are improvement aimed and view

4 Self-Study Methodology: Rationale Development and Refinement 69
their work as impossible to finish. Together, they offer teacher educators, commit-
ted to rationale development as a core theme, a way to make their thinking and
decision making visible to themselves and others. Only by adding to the growing
conversation can social studies teacher educators begin to fully engage in an open
dialogue about the potential of ongoing rationale development and refinement to
actually improve social studies teacher education and the teaching and learning that
takes places in social studies classrooms every day.
References
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good .M a h w a h ,N J :
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beard, C. A. (1934). The nature of the social sciences . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Berry, A., & Crowe, A. R. (2009). Many miles and many emails: Using electronic technologies
in self-study to think about, refine and reframe practice. In D. L. Tidwell, D. L. Heston, & L.
M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 83–98). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Bodone, F., Gu ðjónsdóttir, H., & Dalmau, M. C. (2007). Revisioning and recreating practice:
Collaboration in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell
(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices
(pp. 743–784). Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Bullough, R., & Pinnegar, S. (2007). Thinking about the thinking about self-study: An anal-
ysis of eight chapters. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell
(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices
(pp. 313–342). Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting
reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 6–18.
Dinkelman, T. (2009). Reflection and resistance: The challenge of rationale-based teacher
education .Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 2 (1), 91–108.
Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006a). From teacher to teacher educator:
Experiences, expectations, and expatriation. Studying Teacher Education, 2 (1), 5–23.
Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006b). From teacher to teacher educator: Reframing
knowledge in practice. Studying Teacher Education, 2 (2), 119–136.
Hawley, T. S. (2008) Purpose into practice: The problems and possibilities of rationale-based
practice in social studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Hawley, T. S. (2010). Purpose into practice: The problems and possibilities of rationale develop-
ment in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38 (1), 298–316.
Heilman, E. E. (Ed.). (2009). Social studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do
it. New York: Routledge.
Kitchen, J., & Parker, C. (2009). Self-study communities of practice. In C. A. Lassonde, S. Galman,
& C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 107–128).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2007). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J.
J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Springer.
(Originally published in 2004)
Lighthall, F. F. (2007). Fundamental features and approaches of the s-step enterprise. In J. J.
Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 743–784). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
(Originally published in 2004)

70 T.S. Hawley
Lortie, D. (2002). Schoolteacher . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through
modeling. London: Falmer Press.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and
learning about teaching. New York: Routledge.
Loughran, J. J. (2007). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education prac-
tices. . In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht:
Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Mishler, E. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative
studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (4), 415–442.
Newmann, F. M. (1970). Clarifying public controversy: An approach to teaching social studies .
Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Newmann, F. M. (1977). Building a rationale for civic education. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Building
rationales for citizenship education . Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Pinar, W. F. (1993). Notes on understanding curriculum as a racial text. In C. McCarthy &
W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity, and representation in education (pp. 60–70). London:
Routledge.
Pinnegar, S. (1998). Introduction to part II: Methodological perspectives. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.),
Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 30–33). London:
Falmer Press.
Powell, D. J., & Hawley, T. S. (2009). Four way street: Fusing curriculum, pedagogy, content, and
purpose to advance the common good. In E. A. Heilman (Ed.), Social studies and diversity
education: What we do and why we do it (pp. 43–46). New York: Routledge.
Ritter, J. K. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from
classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3 (1), 5–22.
Ritter, J. K. (2009). Developing a vision of teacher education: How my classroom teacher
understandings evolved in the university environment. Studying Teacher Education, 5 (1),
45–60.
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D. J., & Hawley, T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative self-study
into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2 (3), 341–357.
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D. J., & Hawley, T. S. (2008). Do the cultural values underlying our written
feedback to student teachers constrain the conceptions of democratic citizenship we are teach-
ing for? In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to
change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity, and self-study. Proceedings of the Seventh
International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux, East
Sussex, England (pp. 268–272). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa.
Russell, T. (2007). Tracing the development of self-study in teacher education research and prac-
tice. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1191–1210).
Dordrecht: Springer. (Originally published in 2004)
Shaver, J. P. (1977). The task of rationale-building for citizenship education. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.),
Building rationales for citizenship education (pp. 96–116). Washington, DC: National Council
for the Social Studies.
Shaver, J. P., & Strong, W. (1982). Facing value decisions: Rationale-building for teachers .N e w
York: Teachers College Press.
Thornton, S. J. (2006). What matters most for gatekeeping? A response to VanSledright. Theory
and Research in Social Education, 34 (3), 416–418.
Tidwell, D. L., Heston, M. L., & Fitzgerald, L. M. (2009). Introduction. In D. L. Tidwell, D.
L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp.
xiii–xxii). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter 5
Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation:
A Self-Study Path to Sharing Social Realities
and Challenges in a Field-Based Social Studies
Curriculum Methods Course
Diane E. Lang
In the United States, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) defines
social studies as a discipline that prepares students to become active participants
in democracy. Given the diversity within the United States, ensuring that diversity
issues are explored within elementary social studies curriculum methods courses
is crucial to this endeavor. The design and placement of diversity-oriented teach-
ing experiences and content for preservice teachers can be challenging for teacher
educators and capturing teachable moments related to diversity and social studies
is even more difficult. Drawing from Gu ðjónsdóttir’s (2006) work helping preser-
vice teachers focus on diversity and inclusion, I decided to use Praxis Inquiry (PI)
and the Praxis Inquiry Protocol (PIP) form as part of a self-study effort designed to
hone my skills for bringing issues of diversity and democracy to the forefront in the
context of the social studies curriculum methods course.
Praxis Inquiry encourages preservice teachers to base their questions in prac-
tice and teacher educators to weave their teaching through the preservice teachers’
inquiries. The Praxis Inquiry Protocol is the form that is used to develop a writ-
ten record of the process. As the course I was teaching was a field-based course
involving significant coteaching of social studies, there were many opportunities
for the protocol to be used to analyze classroom events. Coteaching is a model of
teacher education where teacher candidates plan, teach, and reflect collaboratively
with a master K–12 classroom teacher and a professor (Lang & Siry, 2008; Martin,
2009; Siry, 2009). This level of interaction with students and educators allows for
an authentic context for bringing theory alive in practice. In this teacher education
model the protocol was employed over the course of a semester in the context of
two sections of a field-based elementary social studies curriculum methods course.
Through using the protocol, challenges related to diversity and the teaching of social
studies were documented and explored. The impact of the Praxis Inquiry Protocol
on preservice teachers learning to manage and embrace diversity within social stud-
ies and my understanding of the course were explored on e-discussion boards as
D.E. Lang (B)
School of Education, Manhattanville College, 2900 Purchase Street, Purchase, NY 10577, USA
e-mail: diane@volsted.com
71 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_5, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

72 D.E. Lang
well. A critical document analysis of PIP records, e-discussion boards, and preser-
vice teacher interviews furthered my self-study project. Ultimately, I concluded that
managing and teaching about diversity requires openness, experience, and reflec-
tion. Understanding points of view and perspective taking are crucial in the diverse
social studies classroom and the Praxis Inquiry Protocol supported the exploration
of these concepts in teaching through creating a document-based interpretative
mirror of teaching.
Literature Review
Praxis Inquiry and Teacher Education
In the introduction of their significant 2007 paper, Gu ðjónsdóttir, Cacciattolo,
Dakich, Davies, Kelly, and Dalmau center the purpose of Praxis Inquiry in teacher
education. They contend that
Current global visibility of ethnic, ideological, and social intolerance accentuates the need
for teacher education programs to focus on the preparation of educators who can build
inclusive student-centered learning communities that are based in appreciation of diversity
and openness to the world. (p. 165)
Interested in bringing inclusive teaching practice to the forefront in teacher edu-
cation, Gu ðjónsdóttir (2006) supports the use of Praxis Inquiry and the Praxis
Inquiry Protocol as it has preservice teachers base their questions in practice and has
teacher educators develop their teaching to respond and support preservice teachers’
questions and inquiries.
Praxis Inquiry is an ideological framework developed at Victoria University in
Australia and reported on by Cherednichenko and Kruger in 2005. This frame-
work is organized around several beliefs: (1) The exploration of preservice teachers’
questions about the ways students experience education and learning is central
to their development as future teachers, (2) university-based teaching should be
grounded in and responsive to the preservice teachers’ questions, field experience,
and inquires, and should involve preservice teachers in collegial and professional
discourse to address questions and inquiries, (3) university teacher educators should
acknowledge the significant impact social factors have on educational experience
and learning, and (4) university teacher educators should engage in partnerships
that allow the field-based and campus-based education of teachers to unfold in rich
and dynamic school contexts. Praxis Inquiry (PI) is a model of teacher education
that provides insight into the challenges preservice teachers face when they work to
integrate readings and philosophical foundations into play with their actual teaching
or interactions with students.
The Praxis Inquiry Protocol (PIP) is “an effective tool” to support the enactment
of “social justice actions” in education and teacher education (Cherednichenko, Gay,
Hooley, Kruger, & Mulraney, 1998). The protocol allows preservice teachers to
reflect on their questions and interpretations of teaching and learning experiences
with students. As the protocol has a written form it allows for there to be a record of

5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation 73
these thoughts, theories, and action plans for change and development. As well, the
teacher educator is responsive to the preservice teachers’ ideas and questions and
customizes the course to be supportive of the preservice teachers developing their
practice to support the enactment of socially just pedagogies.
The Praxis Inquiry Protocol asks preservice teachers to slow down and reflect on
their developing practice as teachers and consider alternative paths and solutions to
classroom challenges. As a teacher education instructional tool, the Praxis Inquiry
Protocol form allows teacher educators to see the preservice teacher’s description of
a challenge and suggestions for re-engineering practice. Specifically, the PIP form
asks preservice teachers to write about some practice-based issue and consider and
answer four prompts. The prompts are
(1)Practice Described (Describe practice/event—cases, artifacts, anecdotes—and
identify key questions—what do I wonder about when I think about this
practice/event?),
(2)Practice Explained (Seek and discover professional explanations [literature,
textbooks, mentors, colleagues, etc.] for one’s practice—How can I understand
this practice/event?),
(3)Practice Theorized (Consider the over-riding question—Who am I becoming as
an educator as I integrate these understandings and beliefs into my practice as a
teacher?), and
(4)Practice Changed (Plan action—How can I improve learning for students and
improve my capacity as an educator? What are my new questions about teach-
ing? Consider the social justice implications of educational practices.) (Kruger,
2006 in Gu ðjónsdóttir et al., 2007, p. 168)
Using Praxis Inquiry Protocol forms allows the teacher educator to differentiate
instruction and provide support and knowledge of teaching methods within a context
that is current and useful.
Elementary School Social Studies
The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) published comprehensive
national social studies standards in 1994 for the United States. These standards
have invigorated the teaching of social studies at the elementary school level and
have moved the focus more squarely on developing students’ knowledge and skills
so that they can have an active voice in a democratic society. Currently, standards-
based social studies curriculum material is drawn broadly from ten NCSS themes
and should use inquiry-based processes to “foster curiosity, problem-solving skills,
and appreciation of investigation” (Mindes, 2005, p. 3). The standards have also
encouraged many elementary teachers to move away from the widening communi-
ties model for the curriculum to the cultural universals model promoted by Brophy
and Alleman (2006). This focus on the cultural universals at the elementary level
has fostered the development of more inclusive social studies teaching practices and
curricula (Alleman, Knighton, & Brophy, 2007).

74 D.E. Lang
Kincheloe (2001) in G etting Beyond the Facts: Teaching Social Studies/Social
Science in the Twenty-first Century argues for a critical inquiry and analysis
approach to the teaching of social studies. He writes that social studies should
be taught by “scholarly democratic teachers” working as “knowledge workers”
(Kincheloe, 2001, p. 30). In this model of social studies curricula, teachers, pre-
service teachers, and students “take control and set the direction of the learning
process” (p. 33). In this active vision of curricula, social studies is connected to
everyday life and larger concepts through developing essential intellectual skills
such as reading, writing, interpreting, and communicating (Kincheloe, 2001).
Students develop “an awareness of themselves as social players–citizens who are
shaped by social, cultural, and political forces” and can influence the social world
(p. 33). Drawing Brophy and Alleman (2006), Alleman, Knighton, and Brophy
(2007), and Kincheloe (2001) together, it is clear that social studies is the central
curricular area for exploring diversity, democracy, and social justice.
Teacher Educator as Teacher, Learner, and Researcher
Teacher educators around the world have used self-study of teacher education prac-
tices to help clarify and interpret their work as teacher educators. The focus has
been on improving teacher education through careful research, reflection on teacher
education practices, and an inward look at how the teacher educator is evolving as
an educator/researcher. The work of Russell (2007), LaBoskey (2004), Loughran
(2006), and Loughran and Northfield (1998), ground my research and teaching, as I
am concerned with my own learning as a teacher educator and with exploring social
justice and diversity issues in teacher education. Korthagen’s (2001) ideas about
linking practice and theory in teacher education guide this research and teaching.
Drawing from Feldman’s (2009) conceptualization, self-study of teacher education
is used as a methodology to ground this project.
Inquiry for All
Social studies curriculum methods courses are an interesting site for melding
inquiry-based social studies for the students, Praxis Inquiry for the preservice
teachers, and self-study of teacher education practices for the professor. These
philosophical standpoints are consistent and allow for fluid movement between the
positions of teacher/learner/researcher for all involved in the project, upper elemen-
tary school students studying the constitution, preservice teachers, and the teacher
educator.
The Self-Study Project
Two sections (one in the morning and one in the evening) of a graduate level
elementary school social studies curriculum methods course within one semester
were included in this self-study. Both courses included undergraduate and graduate

5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation 75
students although officially the course is a graduate level course in the Master of
Arts in Teaching (MAT) degree program. In both sections, preservice teachers were
required to teach one social studies lesson, with a partner, to a class of elemen-
tary school students. The morning class was taught in the field in an ethnically and
linguistically diverse inclusion classroom at one of the college’s professional devel-
opment schools (PDS) and all of the students taught their lesson using a coteaching
model with the professor with them providing at-the-elbow support. The evening
class students selected their own schools and classes. For the evening class, three
ethnically and economically diverse schools served as host schools. The 20 preser-
vice teachers were all female, ranging in age from 19–55 years old, 25 percent of the
preservice teachers spoke languages other than English at home (Spanish, Italian,
and Greek), 50 percent were mothers, and all were new to teaching.
I have been teaching field-based social studies curriculum methods courses for
4 years and have explored various aspects of my courses and my view of being a
teacher educator through self-study. In this study I wanted to explore how I could
better teach preservice teachers that understanding points of view and perspective
taking are crucial in the diverse social studies classroom. I had hoped that the Praxis
Inquiry Protocol advanced and studied by Gu ðjónsdóttir et al. (2007) would support
the exploration of these concepts in teaching through creating a document-based
interpretative mirror of teaching.
I provided both course sections with materials such as Buhrow and Garcia’s
2006 text about teaching multilingual children. We also read articles about inclusion
strategies, Brophy and Alleman’s (2006) reconceptualization of the rationale for
teaching elementary social studies, and Lundquist’s 2002 text about inquiry-based
elementary social studies designed to enhance the students’ abilities to partic-
ipate in democracy and present their rational and historical voice. Throughout
these readings, we discussed central issues and I emphasized issues of diversity
and democracy as we prepared ourselves to coteach lessons. All of the lessons
were thematically related to the United States Constitution and appropriate for
upper elementary school students. Preservice teachers developed lessons titled What
is a Constitution? Our Classroom Constitution, Writing of the Constitution, The
Preamble, The Bill of Rights, The Branches of Government and Balancing Power,
The Gettysburg Address, From Idea to Amendment, Voting Rights ,The Constitution
and You and many others.
As we prepared to teach the lessons, I asked preservice teachers to try to antic-
ipate any aspects of the lessons that might be points where the diverse needs and
backgrounds of the children might present a challenge or a need for specific support.
Then the preservice teachers taught their lessons over an 8-week period. I observed
and participated in all of the morning class’s lessons and debriefed with the stu-
dents immediately after the lessons. The evening preservice teachers reported to and
debriefed with their preservice teacher class one week after the lesson was taught.
Preservice teachers were introduced to the PIP form in class and were asked
to complete the form following the teaching of their lesson. Individual, paired, and
group discussions took place to address the issues of teaching for and about diversity
that were brought forward as the result of completing the form. Throughout the
8-week coteaching period, I kept a journal of my observations and reflections on the

76 D.E. Lang
preservice teachers teaching and on the PIP forms. As I was teaching the course I
read the PIPs as they were submitted and worked to respond to the students’ issues
in class or on the class-wide e-discussion board.
Once the 8-week data collection period was over, I read all of the PIP forms and
sorted them according to the diversity themes discussed in prompt one of the PIP
form “Practice Described.” Once sorted, I identified categories of preservice teacher
challenge. With the categories identified, I went over my journal and coded it using
the same categories. Finally, I reviewed the data with a self-study colleague with
whom I teach. When we reviewed the data together, I was further able to discuss
some of the changes I saw in my teaching, the preservice teachers’ teaching, and
ideas I had for adjusting the course and the program so that our graduates would
be better prepared to teach for diversity in the elementary school social studies
classroom.
Ultimately, I want to promote the NCSS position that the central purpose for
social studies is to produce a democratic citizenry that understands the social justice
issues fundamental to democratic institutions within the United States. Given this
commitment, what teaching methods, orientations, and philosophies are required
in teacher education to support this? Specifically, do Praxis Inquiry and the Praxis
Inquiry Protocol support preservice teachers to understand and be able to deliver
high quality elementary school social studies methods and curricula? In reviewing
my self-study of teacher education practices evidence, can I find points of success
and areas in need of development in my teaching practices, especially with regard
to the use of Praxis Inquiry and the Praxis Inquiry Protocol?
Results of the Self-study
I was excited to read the PIP forms as they were completed and submitted electron-
ically. I am dedicated to the idea that having a strong social studies background is
empowering and is a liberating path for many of the elementary students who are
new immigrants to the United States and many of whom are ethnic minorities who
have been underrepresented in the growth of our democracy or are economically
disadvantaged. I think that there are some unique issues involved in having disad-
vantaged groups access the power of social studies. However, it is difficult to get
preservice teachers to see social studies not just as academic content and skills but
as something that has the power to liberate people.
As such, I discuss the results in two ways. First, I discuss the preservice teachers’
writing and second, I discuss how this changed how I teach the course and see
myself within this project.
Preservice Teachers
There were three major themes that preservice teachers discussed in their PIP
forms as challenges and areas where I as the professor could provide more

5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation 77
support and direct teaching: addressing linguistic diversity, high levels of knowl-
edge, and disability. Below are two select samples from each theme to high-
light what the preservice teachers shared and then how this influenced my
practice.
Linguistic Diversity
Noreen,1a graduate student, shared frustration with finding a match between the
lesson she and her partner taught and the needs of the bilingual children in the
classroom she selected. Her frustration was evident as she described the practice
in question on the form. She wrote about her cotaught lesson designed to provide
students with an opportunity to interpret the Preamble of the Constitution of the
United States of America:
Practice Described …When I think back on the coteaching it bothers me that we did not
have books to offer the students that were focused on the Preamble. How did we expect the
[English language learner] students to tell us what the words of the Preamble [to the US
Constitution] meant in their own words when we did not have enough books to provide for
them that explained what the words meant? Did we just expect them to figure it out from
the clip art that we passed out plus some class dictionaries? (Noreen, PIP Form, 5/01/09)
Here, Noreen is able to look back on her cotaught lesson with a calm eye for detail.
She realized that what seemed like a minor detail as she planned the lesson on paper,
having texts that supported the lesson, becomes a looming issue having taught the
lesson to 25 students in a class with many English Language Learners (ELLs). In her
practice changed section of the Praxis Inquiry Protocol form she thoughtfully wrote
about needing to find books at a variety of reading levels and in several languages to
support the students with whom she is working. She also translated a song about the
Preamble to Spanish to use with her students the next time she tried to teach about
the Preamble. In many ways she learned through her teaching/writing/discussion
cycle centered on her Praxis Inquiry Protocol form that the choice of text is essential
and that jumping over the issue of language ability by using pictures did not solve
the problem. Elementary teachers teaching social studies have to modify texts and
plan for the array of diverse linguistic groups they face. Failing to do this is to leave
some students behind.
The literacy courses in our school of education have been traditionally the
domain of the literacy professors. However, this PIP form created an opportunity
for me to start talking to faculty about the issues of teaching text selection and
availability of multilingual texts and texts from diverse view points. As the result
of these conversations, I have now developed a new mini course that will be col-
laboratively taught by professors from several departments about language, culture,
texts, and community in teaching. While many courses touched on these issues,
1All preservice teacher (graduate and undergraduate students), master teacher, and student names
within this chapter are pseudonyms.

78 D.E. Lang
there needed to be a place in the teacher education curriculum where it was at the
center of attention.
Trisha, a graduate preservice teacher with training in social work, wrote about
shyness and how this social disposition complicates learning to speak English and
participation in the social studies classroom:
Practice Described …In my tutoring group all three students were born abroad and speak a
language other than English. Maria and Julia speak Spanish and Ann speaks Dutch at home.
The girls often complained about having to learn American history and especially com-
plained about the Constitution unit. All three girls failed to understand the Constitutional
amendments and were reluctant to talk about the topic and looked away when I tried to go
over the review sheets and texts with them.
Practice Explained …When I reflected on how hard it was to get the girls to engage and
talk about the constitutional amendments I thought part of the problem was their confidence
speaking and listening to English. All had passed the English proficiency test and were not
receiving English as a Second Language (ESL) but still appeared shy and unwilling or
unable to discuss the social studies assignments and activities. What I started to realize is
that the girls lacked both a context for understanding the Constitution and I found out they
did not know words and phrases like “pro and con” and who “We, the people, …”w a s
referring to.
Change Described …When I started to think about how I could change my teaching to
meet these girls half way and help them have “a voice” in class I realized I needed to do a
lot of differentiation. I had to pre-teach the phrases and vocabulary. Also, I tried to think of
Supreme Court cases that might help them think about why the Constitution is important
for them to know about. I practiced class lesson questions with them before class so they
could “try-on the words” without the class watching. I think rehearsing with them really
helped them have a voice in class. Now, when I think about the girls I am not sure they were
“shy”; rather they, as fifth grade girls, really wanted to seem cool and were unwilling to do
anything to jeopardize that. The best was at the end of the unit watching Maria and Julia
proposing to the class an amendment to the class constitution. They said “We, the students
of Mr. N’s class” …. (Trisha, PIP form, 4/22/09)
In this PIP form it was interesting to watch Trisha pull apart issues of differen-
tiation, the needs of bilingual children, social needs of children, and the social
studies curriculum. It is also a powerful example of a preservice teacher figuring
out pedagogical methods for helping students to have a voice in class and develop
an understanding of the foundations of our form of government.
As I reflected on what impact Trisha’s insights could have on me as the teacher
educator I was struck by the lingering impact of the young students’ participation
in the ESL program. While they had learned English, they did not feel confident
about their language skills. This lack of confidence (and perhaps skill) was a sig-
nificant barrier for engagement in the social studies program. I used this vignette in
a mini lecture within the courses to brainstorm ideas about how to bridge language
experiences so that children can start to feel confident about their voice in the social
studies classroom. It reminded me to discuss the importance of using theater tech-
niques to provide space to try positions and personas out with the complexities of
the issues explored in the social studies curriculum.

5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation 79
High Levels of Knowledge
Ana and Georgia, both undergraduate preservice teachers, taught their lesson in
a fifth grade class that had not yet studied the United States Constitution. Their
lesson was designed to be an introductory lesson about this critical document. The
following is from Georgia’s Praxis Inquiry Protocol form:
Practice Described …. As we started the lesson we asked initiating questions to spark
a discussion. We asked if they knew what a constitution was, and many students agreed
that it was “a piece of paper that gave us rights.” As the lesson continued we asked, “Why
do you think the Constitution was written?” and only one student, Henry, raised his hand.
He said that the reason the people wrote the Constitution was to give people rights and
freedoms …The lesson proceeded and we talked about power and how the Constitution dis-
tributes governmental power. We asked the students to talk about this and again only Henry
had facts and opinions to share. Every question we had prepared—Henry could answer
without challenge …
Practice Explained …When I think about Henry I think about the Buhrow and Garcia
book. Inquiry is a recurring topic in their book. Inquiry is the developing of questions and
answering them through research done by the students. This would have been ideal for
Henry because he would have been busy and engaged in finding the answers to his questions
and learning rather than answering our questions, which he already knew the answer to.
Practice Changed …Many teachers do not really think about gifted students like Henry.
Teachers focus on the general education students and the special needs students. This has to
change …No one should be over-looked. Everyone needs to be included in a democratic
classroom. I plan to learn more about American history and I am going to organize lessons
such that the students ask questions and do inquiry projects. (Georgia, PIP form, 4/15/09)
Georgia is probably right in her estimation that teachers are more aware and respon-
sive to the needs of the typical or special education students than the needs of the
“gifted.” However, this became an interesting teaching point for the curriculum
methods course. I planned a discussion about what does it mean to be academically
exceptional and what do schools or professional organizations mean when they talk
or write about “exceptional students”? Through planning to address this PIP form
with the preservice teachers in the course, I had a good deal of time to consider
why it is that there is no course in our program about giftedness. Giftedness is not a
required section in any course though there are required sections on disabilities and
linguistic diversity. Why is the gifted population not addressed? These questions
lead to a lively course discussion. Finally, we discussed strategies that would have
worked well with Henry and the other children in the class.
Later in the semester during a lesson on the branches of the American govern-
ment, Cathy, an undergraduate preservice teacher, faced the issue of high levels of
knowledge and academic skill. In her practice described section of her PIP form
she reported, “There was a stand out student in the group studying the judicial
branch. He acted as the group leader. The other students seemed satisfied to follow
his leadership and direction, but he seemed anxious and bored …”I nh e r practice
changed section she reached to integrate information from course-based discussions
and reflections. She shared:

80 D.E. Lang
It is one thing to hear someone else talk about an issue or to read about it in a book but
when it happens to me, then, I think “okay now”, this is what this feels like. Even though we
talked about the needs of gifted students, I had not noticed this as an issue until my cotaught
lesson. I think next time I am going to add more different levels of “challenge questions.”
Also, I could have supplied a wider range of reading materials (below grade level, grade
level, above grade level, and way above grade level) to support the student research on the
branches of government. In the end, I thought I could have made the research project more
challenging or skill level specific by being less directive, I could have asked the students to
develop their own research plans rather than telling them exactly what to do. I learned a lot
coteaching and reflecting on the experience. (Cathy, PIP form, 5/5/09)
Cathy’s reflection is intriguing because she is able to reference what we discussed in
the course but shares that until she experienced issues or phenomena herself it was
challenging for her to integrate the new knowledge, methods, and theories into her
practice as a teacher. This PIP form supported my notion that cotaught courses are
crucial because it creates a space where ideas, theories, and methods about teach-
ing meet real students in the classroom. Preservice teachers coteaching have a high
level of support from professors and masters teachers as they confront the issues of
teaching and learning in context.
Disability
Maura, a graduate preservice teacher, struggled with the social and cognitive
issues of learning disabled students included in the schools’ full-inclusion model
classroom throughout the 8-week observation period. Her PIP form, while quite
elaborate, is included at length because the details of the narrative became so instruc-
tive to me as I thought about how to improve this social studies curriculum methods
course. Maura wrote:
Practice Described …During a lesson on Amendments the small group of children I was
working with was debating whether the amendment proposed to the classroom constitution
was fair or not. The group of children were very engaged and explaining their positions on
the proposed classroom amendment to the group. The group consists of two girls …and a
boy who appears to have a learning disability. …Miguel is a very bright child that some-
times has trouble staying on task. While he is quite articulate it sometimes takes him a while
to get to his point.
Mariana and Jessica had the same viewpoint and thought the amendment should definitely
not be passed. They felt that the proposed amendment was not fair to all students. Miguel,
however, did not make his decision as quickly. He said “Wait right there! I need to think
about what is good and what is bad about the amendment. What is good about it? It’s fun!
Fun is fun! We study so much it’s ok to have fun sometimes, even at school.” To this Jessica
said, “School is for learning, not fun. Besides, it won’t be fun if you are the one that messes
it up for the class and the class doesn’t get their reward. Also, why should two people get
free time if they didn’t work for it? Our vote is no!” she proclaimed, including Mariana in
her statement.
I asked the group if the proposed amendment was fair. We discussed what fair meant and
I asked them to think about the amendment proposal and decide if it was fair or not. ….
Miguel started to draw. The girls turned and started to complete their worksheet. I was about

5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation 81
to intervene in Miguel’s drawing because I thought he was off task. He then started telling
about his drawing.
Miguel had created a “Fairness” scale. He said he was struggling with his decision on if
the amendment was fair or not because he thought it was mostly fair but not completely.
Instead of vocalizing his views he chose to express it through art. As he explained his
fairness scale and justified why he marked it where he did. It looked like a thermometer
and he filled it almost to the top with the top being fair and the bottom being unfair. Miguel
was communicating that the proposed amendment, in his opinion, was 90% fair. The girls
did not listen to his thoughts but continued working on their worksheet. I wondered why
the girls didn’t want to hear what Miguel had to say. His explanation was very detailed,
creative, and interesting. I also wondered why Miguel wasn’t assertive and sharing his ideas
with the girls.
Practice Explained …The girls in our small group may have prejudged Miguel and
assumed his contribution was not relevant to the group discussion. The girls worked together
but isolated Miguel from the discussion and decision making process. They did not listen to
his opinions on the matter at hand. While I continued to listen and validate his ideas I should
have drawn the girls back into the discussion. Miguel gave a very detailed explanation as to
why the amendment that was proposed was not completely fair but was somewhat fair. The
girls could have benefited from hearing his point of view.
“Critical pedagogy causes one to make more inquiries about equality and justice.
Sometimes these inequalities are subtle and covert. The process requires courage and
patience. Courage promotes change and democracy provides all learners equal access to
power.” (Wink, 2000) In this case, the injustice was subtle. Miguel did not seem effected
by the girl’s dismissal of his ideas or the fact that I allowed it to occur. Why had this not
affected Miguel? It made me wonder, had this happened so often that he got desensitized?
If that is the case, then that is very disappointing …
Practice Theorized …When the incident occurred I actually thought I handled it appro-
priately. I gave Miguel the respect he deserved and opportunity to contribute to the class
discussion. He was allowed to present his ideas in a different way.
On the way home I contemplated why the girls didn’t listen to Miguel or take his ideas into
consideration …His ideas are well redeveloped and insightful. In discussing this moment
in teaching with me, Professor Lang helped me see this incident in a different light. I was
actually contributing to the student’s lack of respect and isolation tactics by allowing them
to tune out when Miguel was sharing his ideas about fairness. By not drawing the girls back
into the discussion I was sending Miguel the message that his ideas didn’t matter or count.
We can develop a thinking classroom culture by encouraging students to learn through ques-
tioning, researching, and critical thinking—this is critical pedagogy (Buhrow & Garcia,
2006). I want to be a teacher that facilitates critical pedagogy and fosters a learning envi-
ronment in which all students are respected, valued, appreciated and get their individual
learning needs met. All students should be treated fairly and equally. Teachers should aid
children in building a democratic learning community that is centered on self-control, self-
direction, understanding, cooperation, and social problem solving (Lindquist, 2002). I want
to create a classroom environment where students listen and learn from each other and will
stand up for what they believe in.
Practice Changed …It is important for me to be aware of the messages I am sending
directly and indirectly to my students. While I listened to and appreciated Miguel’s ideas it
is important that as the classroom teacher I have the expectation that his peers will do the
same. If they don’t, it is not acceptable for me to ignore their inappropriate behavior. By not
dealing with the issue, I sent the wrong message to Miguel.

82 D.E. Lang
It is my expectation that the children in my classroom will treat all of their peers with respect
and listen to each other’s ideas, opinions, and thoughts …I will also work with the children
to build self-confidence and to be more assertive. “A learning community atmosphere is an
open and supportive one in which students are encouraged to speak their minds without
fear of ridicule of their ideas, criticism for mentioning taboo topics, or voicing forbidden
opinions” (Alleman, Knighton, & Brophy, 2007, p. 166).
To help promote community in the classroom we will develop a classroom constitution in
which the rules and consequences for the class are established …. As a classroom teacher
it will be my responsibility to enforce these rules and help promote a peaceful classroom
environment in which as children will learn and thrive. (Maura, Praxis Inquiry Protocol,
4/29/09)
In many ways this was the most interesting PIP form collected over the 8-week
period. Using the form Maura was able to use a narrative to show her unfolding
understandings of a difficult situation. As she writes, she sees that perhaps she
was partially responsible for the girls’ dismissal of the contributions of a learn-
ing disabled student. The story is poignant and I used it to spark discussions in both
sections of the course. I shared Maura’s Practice Described with the course sections
and asked them to work in pairs to consider what they might write in the Practice
Explained andPractice Changed sections of the PIP form. Then Maura and I talked
about her original writing relative to the course-wide responses. It led to the pre-
service teachers clarifying their own prejudices about what being disabled means.
As we worked developing course-wide strategies for dealing with a range of dis-
abilities as the preservice teachers worked their students, it was intriguing to watch
them develop a sense of the significance that the respect the teachers show impact
the respect students show.
Malulah is a mature graduate preservice teacher. Her prior experiences, as a bank
manager and the mother of a learning disabled child, color her view of teaching.
She reflects on teaching about the process of amending the Constitution within
a coteaching situation where other preservice teachers were helping her teach the
lesson:
Practice Described …developing an original social studies lesson was daunting. I read the
Constitution and We the People (a textbook), to refresh my knowledge. I wanted the lesson
to be interactive. I remembered that the class was going to develop a classroom constitution
and since amendments are such a critical part of the Constitution, the idea for combining
the two led to the lesson plan on amending the classroom constitution. The objective of
the lesson was for students to understand the process of how amendments are made to the
Constitution. At first it seemed simple, but it is not that straight forward …
Practice Explained …Overall, the lesson went well. I became more concerned when it
seemed that some of the students were struggling with the basic concept of developing
the classroom constitution. I thought that would be the easy part. This was one of the
moments when I realized you cannot take anything for granted about prior knowledge or
what students will understand.
Practice Changed …Thinking back, I should have had some of the students share their
thoughts about the process to clarify that they understood as I was teaching. It would have
also served as a modeling tool. I found lots of things in the teaching experience surprising.
I had differentiated the worksheets and glossaries but it was hard to get the students to
use different materials. The children had trouble with the lesson and some of the other

5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation 83
preservice teachers that were supposed to be helping me out did too. I was surprised to
hear one of the other preservice teachers say that she did not realize a class could have
a “constitution”. When I explained that a constitution was like a road map for setting up a
government and that each state had a state constitution and other countries had constitutions,
she said, “Really? I never knew that.” I realize now you cannot assume prior knowledge; you
really have check for it and develop the lesson to deal with what you found out. (Malulah,
PIP form, 5/3/09)
As the professor responding to this PIP form I thought it was an interesting oppor-
tunity to discuss when a teaching method does not address the problem you were
targeting. Malulah knew that the class she was going to coteach included several
disabled students. She actively planned for all of the children based on what she
believed would be challenging and dutifully differentiated (Tomlinson, 2004) the
worksheets, note taking sheets, and the lesson glossary. What she did not anticipate
was that some might still find the lesson challenging.
The Professor
When I read the preservice teachers Praxis Inquiry Protocol forms I was impressed
with their candor. It was a challenge for me to read the forms and think about how
to modify the following week’s workshop or mini lecture to incorporate their needs
and still cover all of the content and skills I was required to teach. In many ways,
I was reminded of my time as an elementary school inclusion teacher. I was dancing
between state curricular demands and the real life demands of the students before
me. For the first time as a university staff member, now I was being pulled by virtue
of having set up this self-study to see how I could re-capture the teachable diver-
sity moments and help preservice teachers to teach social studies with a vision for
democracy. An excerpt from my journal shows this dance in the moment:
I never know how direct to be in the social studies course and I often feel like I see the
“diversity teachable moments” slip right though our fingers as I coteach with our preservice
teachers. I try to slow them down in the moment and point out the dilemmas but most of the
time, I feel like the preservice teachers are so worried about “really teaching” and finishing
the lessons, that we miss the moment. (Professor’s reflective journal, Week 1 of 8)
During week 4, two graduate preservice teachers were leading a lesson on the his-
torical context for the writing of the Constitution. One of the preservice teachers said
to the class “The Patriots fought the British during the Revolutionary War. After the
Patriots won they had to found their new country and wanted to set up a government,
so they wrote the Constitution.” A fifth grade student, Jermaine, raised his hand and
queried, “You mean American Patriots right? Because the British Patriots fought for
Britain, right?” To this, one of the preservice teachers said, “No, the British were the
British and the Americans were Patriots or Loyalists.” The master teacher recogniz-
ing value in Jermaine’s question then interjected a comment and said, “Jermaine,
let’s talk about this more. What does it mean to be a patriot?” The conversation that
ensued was about points of view, what does being a patriot mean, and are there only
“American patriots”? (Anecdote recorded in the Professor’s reflective journal)

84 D.E. Lang
I thought this was a telling example because it illuminates the stiff interpretation
of the unit content that some preservice teachers had and how this limited perspec-
tive and background made it hard to respond to a child who was demonstrating
a high level of understanding of the required content. Jermaine was realizing that
there were probably many “patriots” fighting in the American Revolutionary War.
Also, he demonstrated in the broader dialogue that transpired that he was seeing
that patriotic behavior could be interpreted differently depending on your loyalties.
It might even be possible to consider a loyalist position as being grounded in a
patriotic vision. The preservice teachers missed a diversity moment to support a
high performing student because they did not have full control of the social studies
content and vocabulary in play in the exchange with the fifth grade student.
When I reflected on the moment and thought about how to work with it to expand
course discussions, I decided to conduct a seminar on the use of “no” as a reply to
a child’s question in the classroom and then revisit the specific dialogue in class.
Mr. N (the master teacher) was present for the seminar as he was the one that saved
the child’s question and kept it alive with the class. Something I strive for is, for the
preservice teachers to see the nuisances so crucial to social studies. Recording notes
as we coteach and returning to them with the preservice teachers allows them to see
reflection in action and helps them to be open to addressing and re-addressing issues
that emerge through teaching.
Though preservice teachers are required to have completed a course in history
prior to taking this course, I think that part of the challenge that they have in identi-
fying diversity moments in the teaching of social studies is that they lack or perhaps
lack confidence in their knowledge of American history, government, and current
issues. This lack of depth of knowledge of the content that is central to elementary
social studies makes it difficult to view the content from multiple vantage points.
Going forward, I have decided to add a refresher “mini course on American History
and governance” within the social studies methods course. As well, I have requested
that the prerequisite for this course be changed from a “course in history” to a course
titled The Development of America I and II which is a two semester sequence that
covers the development of America from the Age of Discovery to the present and
one course in American governance.
Discussion
In many ways, I think it is very difficult to capture the essence of moments when
diversity issues are central to a social studies lesson. However, it is critical that we
support preservice teachers to develop an eye to see this curricular view both in
planning and as lessons unfold. If this view and pedagogical skills for engaging
diverse points of view into the conversation of social studies is not developed then,
diversity is not embraced and is only a tangent to the main curriculum of preset
content and skills and does not prepare anyone to engage in democracy and the
search for the greatest good for the greatest number. Praxis Inquiry and the Praxis
Inquiry Protocol did make diversity issues in the teaching of social studies become

5 Diversity, Democracy, and Documentation 85
more clear and actionable in the Elementary Social Studies Curriculum Methods
course.
Based on a self-study project focused on whether field-based learning could
transform preservice teachers understanding of social studies teaching and learning,
Ritter, Powell, and Hawley (2007) concluded that unless teacher educators create
opportunities for critical examination of preservice teacher beliefs and rationales of
teaching, they will “continue to enter student teaching without the ability to make
connections between what they are teaching and the contextual issues raised by their
student teaching placements” (p. 352). Ritter, Powell, and Hawley’s thought is sim-
ilar to my conclusion. If we are to prepare elementary teaches to engage in social
studies as a means to support democracy this requires a significant re-examination of
many preservice teachers’ beliefs and rationales about why one might teach social
studies. Intensive learning experiences teaching children supported by teacher edu-
cators, reflecting on lessons and experiences, and creating and teaching lessons
based on action plans for change are essential.
Teaching using the Praxis Inquiry and Praxis Inquiry Protocol created a unique
window for the preservice teachers to see their work with students and allowed me
as the teacher educator to respond to their inquiries as part of the course. As well,
the protocol documents became a springboard for me to consider what prerequisite
experiences would give greater dominion to the preservice teachers’ understanding
of the teaching of social studies in the elementary school classroom.
References
Alleman, J., Knighton, B., & Brophy, J. (2007). Social studies: Incorporating all children using
community and cultural universals as the centerpiece. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (2),
166–173.
Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2006). A reconceptualized rationale for elementary social studies.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 34 (4), 428–454.
Buhrow, B., & Garcia, A. U. (2006). Ladybugs, tornados and swirling galaxies: English language
learners discover their world through inquiry . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cherednichenko, B., Gay, J., Hooley, N., Kruger, T., & Mulraney, R. (1998). Case writing: Making
teachers knowledge public. In B. Down, C. Hogan, & P. Swan (Eds.), Reclaiming professional
knowledge: New ways of thinking about teachers’ learning (pp. 38–50). Perth, WA: Edith
Cowan University.
Cherednichenko, B., & Kruger, T. (2005). Social justice and teacher education: Re-defining the
curriculum . Paper presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Learning, Granada,
Spain.
Feldman, A. (2009). Making the self problematic: Data analysis and interpretation in self – study
research. In C. A. Lassonde, S. Galman, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research methodologies
for teacher educators (pp. 35–49). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2006). Developing a course on inclusive education for graduate students: Praxis
inquiry in teacher education. In L. M. Fitzgerald, M. Heaton, & D. L. Tidwell (Eds.), The
sixth international conference on self-study of teacher education practices: Collaboration and
community: Pushing boundaries through self-study (pp. 103–107). Cedar Falls, IA: University
of Northern Iowa.
Guðjónsdóttir, H., Cacciattolo, M., Dakich, E., Davies, A., Kelly, C., & Dalmau, M. (2007).
Transformative pathways: Inclusive pedagogies in teacher education. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 40 (2), 165–182.

86 D.E. Lang
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social studies/social sciences in the
twenty-first century. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Korthagen, F. A. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education .
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kruger, T. (2006). What is praxis inquiry? Melbourne, VIC: Victoria University.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J.
Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Lang, D. E., & Siry, C. (2008) Diversity as a context for inquiry-based pre-service teacher learn-
ing and teaching in elementary school settings: A self-study in teacher education practices. In
M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to change in teacher
education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study, The proceedings of the seventh international con-
ference on self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 213–217). Cedar Falls, IA: University
of Northern Iowa.
Lindquist, T. (2002). Seeing the whole through social studies (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Loughran, J. and Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice.
In M. L. Hamilton, (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education
(pp. 7–18). London: Falmer Press.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and
learning about teaching . New York: Routledge.
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum
standards for social studies . Washington, DC: Author.
Martin, S. (2009). Learning to teach science. In W. M. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), World of sci-
ence education: Handbook of research in North America (pp. 569–586). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Mindes, G. (2005). Social studies in today’s early childhood curricula. Young Children, 1, 1–8.
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D., & Hawley, T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative self-study
into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2 (3), 341–357.
Russell, T. (2007). How experience changed my values as a teacher educator. In T. Russell &
J. Loughran, (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships, and
practices . (pp. 182–191). New York: Routledge.
Siry, C. (2009). Fostering solidarity and transforming identities: A collaborative approach to
elementary science teacher education . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of
New York.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, V A: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Chapter 6
Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher
Education: Facilitating Learning About
Teaching for Democratic Citizenship
Jason K. Ritter
The progressive educational philosophy of John Dewey (1916/2004, 1938/1997)
focused on the importance of educating students for life in democratic society.
Because Dewey theorized that education and society were interactive and interde-
pendent, he stressed that schooling must be understood as “a process of living and
not a preparation for future living” (Dewey, 1897/2006, p. 24). For this reason his
philosophy has been embraced by scholars in the field of social studies education
interested in advancing both the study and practice of democratic citizenship with
students. Parker (2008), one such scholar, argued “that democratic citizens need
both to know democratic things and to dodemocratic things,” and “that a proper
democratic education proceeds in both directions in tandem” (p. 65). From this view,
social studies educators must be concerned both with what students learn as well as
how they learn or apply those understandings and skills in their roles as citizens in
a pluralistic democratic society.
Parker (2008) conceptualized the aim of democratic citizenship education as
enlightened political engagement. Achieving enlightened political engagement
demands student competency in two closely connected dimensions of citizenship:
democratic enlightenment and political engagement.
The latter dimension, political engagement, refers to the action or participation dimension of
democratic citizenship, from voting to campaigning, boycotting, and protesting. Democratic
enlightenment refers to the knowledge and commitment that informs this engagement: for
example, knowledge of the ideals of democratic living, the ability to discern just from unjust
laws and actions, the commitment to fight civic inequality, and the ability and commitment
to deliberate public policy in cooperation with disagreeable others. (p. 68)
Obviously, given the nature of these dimensions, enlightened political engagement
is not something that is simply achieved—“one works at it continually (path), in
concert with others (participation), and intentionally with others who are of different
ideology, perspective, or culture (pluralism)” (p. 68).
J.K. Ritter (B)
Instruction & Leadership in Education, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Avenue,
102A Canevin Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA
e-mail: ritterj@duq.edu
87 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_6, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

88 J.K. Ritter
The burden of responsibility to facilitate the conditions necessary for students
to work toward enlightened political engagement in social studies classrooms rests
with the teacher. Vinson and Ross (2001) argued “the key to the curriculum expe-
rienced in the classroom is the teacher” (p. 52). Levstik (2008) echoed this point in
her recent review of the literature on what happens in social studies classrooms,
claiming, “What we do know is that teachers matter and that teaching is influ-
enced by teachers’ sense of purpose, their understanding of students’ capabilities,
and their expectations regarding institutional support” (pp. 59–60). Because these
factors inevitably bear on daily practice, it is important for social studies teachers
interested in democratic citizenship to be mindful of their decisions and actions in
the classroom.
Citing Dewey’s work around experience and education, Singer (2003) noted how
students learn democracy “from the full spectrum of their experiences in school,
not just the specific thing they are studying in class. They learn from what they
are studying, how they are studying, who they are studying with, and how they are
treated” (p. 69). Consequently, in order to effectively teach for democratic citizen-
ship, teachers must consider the proper subject matter for their lessons, the most
beneficial pedagogical methods in which to engage their students, and the most
appropriate forms of managing their classrooms in relation to their purpose. But the
question remains of how teachers acquire the understanding and skills necessary to
make such determinations in the first place.
In thinking about this question, we might do well to heed Ross (2006), who
suggested “that teachers are the key element in curriculum improvement,” but “cur-
riculum change in the social studies will only be achieved through the improved
education and professional development opportunities for teachers” (p. 32). This
call to improve the education of teachers as a means to induce curriculum change
necessarily shifts some of the responsibility for advancing democratic citizenship in
social studies classrooms to teacher educators—a shift that only seems appropriate.
After all, if it is true that students learn democracy from the full spectrum of their
experiences in school, then it stands to reason that preservice teachers learn how to
teach democracy from the full spectrum of their experiences in teacher preparation
programs. Owning up to this responsibility by more closely examining the prac-
tice of social studies teacher educators seems imperative for improving democratic
citizenship education.
This study focuses on my curricular and pedagogical decision making as a
beginning social studies teacher educator. Analyses of public reflections shared
with my students on an electronic discussion board during our student teach-
ing seminar reveal the ways in which I attempted to engage in the sort of
practice capable of advancing notions of teaching for democratic citizenship. In
what follows, I first provide an overview of the research frame used for this
study. Then I explain the conceptual basis of self-study as both a teaching and
research methodology. Finally, themes from my practice are presented and dis-
cussed, and an argument is put forward that details the ways in which modeling
self-study with preservice teachers represents a desirable source of tension to facil-
itate learning about teaching for democratic citizenship in social studies teacher
education.

6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education 89
Research Frame
An important consideration in how well teacher educators might facilitate the study
and practice of democratic citizenship concerns the degree to which they are able
to make favorable determinations in terms of their selection of content, choice of
pedagogical methods, and general management of the learning environment. The
literature on teacher education underscores the fact that most teacher educators were
classroom teachers prior to their university appointments (Ducharme & Kluender,
1990; Lanier & Little, 1986). But prior experience in the classroom, even if it did
allow for the acquisition of understanding and skills crucial to make favorable deci-
sions in practice, does not guarantee that teacher educators are necessarily well
poised to improve the teaching of democratic citizenship.
One reason for this anomaly concerns the fact there is a different emphasis for
instruction in teacher education (Northfield & Gunstone, 1997). Although class-
room teachers are expected to teach subject matter, teacher educators are expected
to teach about how to teach subject matter—or in the case of social studies, to
teach about how to teach democratic citizenship. To this end, a number of studies
have demonstrated how the knowledge acquired through classroom teaching may
not be sufficient for the task of teaching about teaching (Bullock, 2007; Heaton &
Lampert, 1993; Korthagen, Loughran, & Lunenberg, 2005; Kosnik, 2007; Koster,
Brekelmans, Korthagen, & Wubbels, 2005; Ritter, 2007, 2009). Loughran (2005)
suggested the distinction between teaching, per se, and teaching about teaching
can be understood in terms of “the overarching need for teacher educators to pay
attention to their own pedagogical reasoning and reflective practice and to create
opportunities for their student teachers to access this thinking about, and practice
of, teaching” (p. 9).
Even if the transition from classroom teaching to teacher education was
seamless—if the same knowledge, skills, and values useful in one context could
be transferred to the other—it still would not be enough to simply possess the
understanding and skills necessary to advance democratic citizenship because, in
the complex world of human interaction, intention does not always translate to or
correspond with action (Whitehead, 1993). Along these lines, the executive sum-
mary of the report of the American Educational Research Association’s panel on
research and teacher education noted how “intending to engage in a desirable teach-
ing practice is insufficient. The research documents numerous situations in which
prospective teachers and even teacher educators want to teach in desirable ways but
are not able to move easily from intention to action” (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner,
2005, p. 15).
The possibilities for contradiction in practice do not automatically decrease when
a move is made to translate intention to action. As Berry (2004) summarized,
The hidden curriculum of teacher education and teacher socialisation literature (Ginsburg &
Clift, 1990; Zeichner & Gore, 1990) indicates that it is not only the tenacity with which stu-
dent teachers maintain their beliefs about teaching that makes change difficult, but also the
fact that tacit messages conveyed though the structures and practices of teacher education
programs serve to further reinforce traditional notions of teaching, learning, schools and
teachers. (p. 1303)

90 J.K. Ritter
In this way teacher educators must constantly be vigilant of how the whole of their
practice actually corresponds to their ideals. This is an important point because,
as previously noted, students learn “from the full spectrum of their experiences
in school, not just the specific thing they are studying in class” (Singer, 2003,
p. 69).
Although teacher educators may have limited control over the structures and
practices of their programs at large, they generally maintain autonomy regard-
ing the structures and practices of their courses. This is of no small importance
for teacher educators interested in advancing certain views of teaching and learn-
ing. According to Grossman (2005), “in the professional preparation of teachers,
the medium isthe message” (p. 425). Put another way, how one teaches is an
essential part of what one teaches (Loughran & Russell, 1997). As such, the auton-
omy of teacher educators to run their courses how they please, if seized upon,
represents a powerful opportunity to strengthen the underlying message of their
practice through the integration and unification of content, pedagogy, and classroom
management.
It would appear the issue for social studies teacher educators interested in facil-
itating learning about teaching for democratic citizenship concerns both what they
believe and how they apply or enact their beliefs in practice. Although important,
this chapter does not focus, in a traditional sense, on answering the question of
whether or not I have acquired the understanding and skills necessary to make
curricular and pedagogical choices useful for advancing notions of democratic
citizenship. Some of my previous work (Ritter, 2007, 2009) has touched on this
question through an extended examination of the challenges experienced in devel-
oping my vision for teacher education as I moved from the classroom to the
university.
However, more importantly for the purposes of this study, I chose not to focus on
whether or not I have acquired the understanding and skills necessary to advance
notions of democratic citizenship because I operated from the assumption that
teacher education is a learning problem (Cochran-Smith, 2004). Teaching others
how to teach for democratic citizenship represents a process that righteously lacks a
conclusion. There is no one correct method because there is no end to the number of
potentially valuable learning experiences teacher educators might structure for their
students’ learning.
Just as with democracy itself, when viewed as a path or journey (Dewey,
1916/2004; Parker, 2003), teaching about teaching for democratic citizenship must
remain amenable to “the possibility of continuous change and enlargement of
‘culture’ …the potential for its own transformation” (Beyer, Feinberg, Pagano, &
Whitson, 1989, p. 12). Understanding social studies teacher education for demo-
cratic citizenship as a learning problem demands teacher educators to be both
deliberate and responsive in their endeavors. Because self-study played such a
large part in this study as the means to navigate these tensions, the next sec-
tion is devoted to the exploration of self-study as a methodology for teaching and
research.

6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education 91
Self-Study as a Teaching and Research Methodology
In so far as self-study takes the life experiences of individuals as its subject matter,
it can be considered a form of the biographical method (Denzin, 1989). According
to Erben (1998), the biographical method usually has a specific and a general pur-
pose. First, “the specific purpose of the research will be the analysis of a particular
life or lives for some designated reason” (p. 4). And, “the general purpose is to pro-
vide greater insight than hitherto into the nature and meaning of individual lives or
groups of lives” (p. 4). This duality of purpose underscores the notion that self-study
represents an appropriate methodology for both improving one’s teaching (e.g., the
specific purpose) and contributing to the formal knowledge base of research on
teacher education (e.g., the general purpose).
Self-study is usually thought of in a manner consistent with the definition offered
by Samaras (2002) as a “critical examination of one’s actions and the context of
those actions in order to achieve a more conscious mode of professional activity,
in contrast to action based on habit, tradition, and impulse” (p. xxiv). According to
Cole and Knowles (1998),
Teacher educators, many of whom were classroom teachers prior to entering the academy
as university-based educators, engage in self-study both for purposes of their own personal
professional development and for broader purposes of enhanced understanding of teacher
education practices, processes, programs, and contexts. (p. 42)
LaBoskey (2004) suggested that teacher educators involved in self-study seek “to
generate local, situated, provisional knowledge of teaching” as well as to “trigger
further deliberations, explorations, and change by other educators in their contexts”
(p. 1170).
As to the purpose of generating local, situated, provisional knowledge of teach-
ing, most teacher educators who engage in self-study of their teaching practices
agree with Berry and Loughran (2005) that “it is through ‘unpacking’ pedagogical
experiences that understanding the complexity of teaching can come to the fore”
(p. 173). If done publicly, this unpacking can be equally useful for the learning of
teacher educators and the students in their classes. Building on this understanding,
Russell (2002) claimed
most teacher educators are aware that their students can read every teaching move we make
for an implicit message about how to teach. Those of us who are acutely aware of the
potential for contradiction between the content and process of our teaching and who wish
to minimize such contradictions seem to be drawn to the self-study of teacher education
practices. (p. 3)
So while the possibility for contradiction in practice always exists, self-study rep-
resents one way to search “for connections between beliefs and practices with a
desire to make positive meaningful change in the learning environment” (Tidwell &
Fitzgerald, 2004, p. 69).
The broader purpose of using self-study to enhance our general understanding of
teacher education practices, processes, programs, and contexts is considered more
controversial in the larger research community. Cole and Knowles (1998) noted how

92 J.K. Ritter
as a form of research (that is, a process aimed at the production and advancement of
knowledge), …self study is less well accepted in the academy both because of its recent
inception and, more significant, because it represents a challenge to the status quo of what
counts as research and knowledge. (p. 42)
In a separate piece, the authors (1995) claimed, “While doing research isan expec-
tation in our respective institutions, it is typically assumed that we do research
as researchers, notparticipants” (p. 147). Despite such traditional leanings in the
academy, the proliferation of self-study research seems to indicate that a growing
number of scholars agree with Samaras, Hicks, and Garvey Berger (2004) that self-
study “is a key piece in transforming teacher action and ultimately transforming the
educational experiences of schoolchildren everywhere” (p. 906).
Embracing these ideas, this study incorporated self-study as both a teaching and
a research methodology. Self-study represented the means to facilitate student learn-
ing about teaching for democratic citizenship, at the same time as it allowed me to
examine and improve my own practice in relation to that purpose. In what follows,
I describe how my attempts to model self-study of my practice via public reflec-
tions shared with my students on an electronic discussion board contributed to this
dual purpose. First I share some context about the course and the general approach
I embraced as the teacher educator charged with leading it. Then themes from my
practice are presented and discussed as they relate to my thinking publicly about my
selection and use of content, pedagogy, and classroom management.
Modeling Self-Study in a Social Studies Teacher
Education Course
My first experience as the instructor of record for a university-based teacher educa-
tion course occurred during Fall Semester of 2006 when I was given responsibility
for leading a student teaching seminar in a secondary social studies education pro-
gram at a large university in the southeastern United States. This seminar essentially
provided the only formal means to connect students in the program with each other
and with the university while they were in the field student teaching. It also provided
an opportunity for students to attempt to link their work in the schools to established
standards of effective practice approved by the state in which the university was
located. Despite this rationale for the importance of the seminar, mandatory atten-
dance was a source of consternation for many of the student teachers. Experiencing
the realities of the classroom for the first time from the perspective of teachers (see
Cole & Knowles, 1993), many seemed overwhelmed by their responsibilities in the
schools, and less willing or able to act as full participants in their own preparation
at the university during this time.
For my part, I was already in my third year as a graduate assistant working toward
my doctorate in social studies education, and had spent the previous 2 years super-
vising student teachers in the field. These experiences caused me to deeply identify
with the notion that social studies education should be about democratic citizen-
ship (e.g., Parker, 2003, 2008). Moreover, I related strongly with the literature on

6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education 93
self-study describing how such an approach might help to increase understanding
of “oneself; teaching; learning; and the development of knowledge about these”
(Loughran, 2004, p. 9). As a result of these understandings, my commitment going
into the student teaching seminar centered on using self-study of practice to facilitate
learning about teaching for democratic citizenship.
This orientation for my work is laid out in the following discussion board post
written after our first seminar meeting:
I believe it is extremely important for me to practice what I preach. For this seminar, such
a commitment requires me to do my best to embody the core themes of the class by model-
ing them in my own practice. Remember that our themes focus on rationale-based practice,
reflective teaching, securing active student engagement in worthwhile learning, and collab-
orative inquiry. One way for me to accomplish my objective of modeling these themes in my
own practice is to more intimately involve you all in the process. As such, I have decided to
write reflections after each of our seminars in an attempt to more deliberately and explicitly
reveal the rationale for my decision-making as well as my perceptions of how everything
played out. Please use this space to raise your own questions, to make comments, and to
offer different perspectives. (August 17, 2006)
By publicly exposing my decision making, I sought to increase understandings of
teaching for democratic citizenship by making my own practice a site of inquiry
for all in the seminar. This dynamic is explored below in relation to my decisions
regarding content, pedagogy, and classroom management.
Thinking Publicly About Content
Because the purpose of the student teaching seminar was to connect student teachers
to the university and to each other as they attempted to link their work in the schools
to established standards of effective practice approved by the state, the content of the
course was left largely to the instructor. I seized this as an opportunity to introduce
content that might challenge my students’ preconceptions of what it meant to teach
for democratic citizenship. Although I still primarily used our seminar meetings to
interrogate the meaning of the standards, I attempted to do so by structuring learning
experiences that would also be framed by my students’ experiences in the schools
and other supplemental readings more conducive to my goals.
The following reflection from our class discussion board illustrates a typical
example of how I attempted to model my thinking regarding my content choices:
After reading your reaction papers from “The New Teacher Book” (Salas, Tenorio,
Walters, & Weiss, 2004), it seemed to me like your primary concerns focused on the follow-
ing questions. Does teaching for social justice overstep our boundaries as teachers? Should
teaching for social justice take priority over other content/skills? Is it even okay to have a
rationale in which you actually hope students will think in certain ways? Based on your con-
cerns, I thought that it would be worthwhile for us to trouble the notion of indoctrination.
In an attempt to accomplish this goal I passed out three readings for your consideration:
an excerpt written by a group calling themselves the “contrarians” (Leming & Ellington,
2003), an excerpt from an individual who identified as a social reconstructionist (Counts,

94 J.K. Ritter
1932/1978), and an article from a scholar interested in how teachers’ political views influ-
ence their teaching about controversial issues (Hess, 2005). Although you probably didn’t
know it at the time, I picked these three readings because they represented different tra-
ditions of teaching social studies across the ideological spectrum. To me, this seemed like
a good way to broach the question of whether it was ever possible to teach in a way that
didn’t in some way indoctrinate students according to your ideology, whether social justice
or something else. (October 12, 2006)
As this example makes clear, my reflections centered on revealing my reasons
for choosing certain content and disclosing what I hoped would be accomplished
through its study.
Obviously some might question the usefulness of my specific content choices
in this example to advance understandings of teaching for democratic citizenship.
Even now, I am not sure if I made the right decision to provide my students with
multiple views of teaching social studies as a way to trouble the concept of indoc-
trination. Nonetheless, it seems important to note how writing public reflections to
my students at least allowed me the opportunity to explain how my selection of con-
tent was meant to be both purposeful and responsive toward their learning. These
are characteristics I desired for my students to embrace in their own practice as
future teachers. In this way, my public self-study offered me a venue to model that
commitment—or, to practice what I preached.
Enabling student teachers to see into my practice also served to highlight the real-
ity that teaching for democratic citizenship is a learning problem that lacks a simple
technical solution. For example, later in the same reflection, I provided student
access to my thinking regarding the nuance of teaching for democratic citizenship
when I wrote,
Tonight I deliberately presented you with several different stances on how social studies
should be taught. But in the end, did you all leave with the feeling that I was pushing some
kind of an agenda? After all, wasn’t the very fact that I chose to devote a night of class to the
notion of ideology and indoctrination a form of indoctrination? What do you all think? If
the answer is yes (or no), what might this mean for your teaching? Is just teaching the facts
any less of an ideological stand than teaching for social justice, or for social transformation?
(October 12, 2006)
Raising questions such as these through publicly thinking about my selection of
content offered a way to continue pushing student teacher understandings beyond
what we were able to actually accomplish during our time together in the seminar.
As students responded to my reflections in class and on our discussion board,
I also felt better positioned to make content decisions useful for our seminar meet-
ings. After realizing that many of my students were struggling to connect theory to
practice, I decided to share an artifact from my own practice as a high school social
studies teacher—a content map I created for my world history class as a second year
teacher—to facilitate understandings on this issue. I pushed my students to critique
my prior work, and then later publicly reflected,
I can not recount all of the different directions our conversation took tonight (maybe that is
a good sign). For my part, I tried to keep our conversation geared toward exploring how my
content map might have enhanced and/or constrained learning for certain students. I tried to

6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education 95
do this by posing questions like, “What are the themes, biases, and/or potential problems of
teaching from this map?” “Is the content justifiable?” “Did I do my students a disservice?”
I thought that you all had a lot of good things to say regarding each of these topics …
(November 09, 2006)
Although the content map adequately reflected the standardized curriculum of the
state, I had come to recognize its many shortcomings in relation to student learning
about democratic citizenship. My students were encouraged to recognize these same
problems and to discuss possible ways to blend theory and practice more seamlessly
in their practice. This represents an example of how modeling self-study helped me
to be more responsive to what I perceived to be my students’ needs.
Thinking Publicly About Pedagogy
Similar to the issue of content selection explored in the previous section, a teacher
educator’s pedagogy can also send powerful messages to student teachers regarding
the study and practice of democratic citizenship. I operated from the assumption that
teachers probably would not be able to create or sustain contexts useful for learning
about democratic citizenship if they never experienced learning in such contexts for
themselves. Therefore, in thinking about my pedagogy for the student teaching sem-
inar, I consciously sought to engage my students in collaborative inquiry. I viewed
this as a means to facilitate their learning about teaching for democratic citizenship
by actually experiencing what such a context for learning might be like. In keep-
ing with Parker’s (2008) notion of enlightened political engagement, I structured
learning experiences that mostly required students to participate in discussion-based
activities, with their peers, drawing from the diversity present in the class.
With that written, modeling collaborative inquiry in my practice was not always
an easy commitment to honor. The following public reflection on my pedagogy
highlights the tension I felt in making the seminar more student-centered:
I began the class tonight by asking you all to get into pairs to discuss the reading and the
first part of our assignment for this week. I decided to go with pairs because I really wanted
you all to get, and to give, extensive feedback. As you all set about the task that I requested
of you, I kept some notes of what was going through my mind. My notes included such
statements as, “It does not feel good to relinquish control.” “I am uneasy. What is everyone
talking about?” “How would I know?” I share these thoughts with you because they are
real, or at least they were to me at the time. But a component of my rationale for teaching
includes forging respectful relationships with students. So I guess by allowing relatively
unsupervised small group work, I was partly trying to send a message that I do trust you,
or at least that I want to trust you. Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting that you
all should apply the same technique tomorrow in your seventh grade geography class, or
whatever. There are many factors that teachers must consider. Instead, what I am getting at
is that the underlying message of your actions does matter and, in my opinion, students are
more capable of reading those messages than one would think. (August 31, 2006)
At the same time as this reflection describes my discomfort in relinquishing con-
trol, it also makes clear my reasons for doing so. In this way, thinking publicly
about my pedagogy allowed my students to see how teaching is not necessarily

96 J.K. Ritter
about doing what is comfortable. Instead, as a learning problem, teaching for demo-
cratic citizenship represents an ongoing and complex pursuit to align practice with
purpose.
The students in my seminar were provided many other examples of how I
attempted to align my practice with my purpose as the semester progressed. For
instance, after a couple of class sessions in which our discussions did not seem par-
ticularly engaging, I decided to change my approach as the facilitator, as laid out in
following reflection:
First I provided you all with a list of fifteen assertions put forward in “The New Teacher
Book” (Salas et al., 2004). I asked you to read all of the statements and to note five of them
that caused you to have the strongest reactions. Next, I asked you to record your initial
reactions to those statements. Then I asked you to push yourself to see the issue from the
other side …to see if you could determine what the rationale for that kind of thinking might
be, and whether it might be worthwhile for you to consider in your own practice. Finally, we
moved into a discussion based on your thoughts. My rationale for this approach was based
on a number of things I had read on our discussion board recently. It has been suggested
that some of the problems with our discussions so far include a lack of focus, everyone just
repeating the same things, and nobody wanting to be in seminar in the first place. To make
folks want to be in the seminar (at least a little more), I tried to pick material to read that
would be a little provocative. I also tried to pick out some of the more controversial things
they asserted to present to you all for discussion. In order to push folks not to just keep
repeating the same things, I asked you to actively consider the other side to your original
reaction for at least five of the assertions. I was hoping this might add something new to our
conversation, like, “Well, I was thinking this, but maybe that makes some sense.” Finally,
by identifying the major issues that were present in the book for each of you and asking
you to share them with the class, I was hoping our conversation would be more focused.
(September 28, 2006)
Writing this reflection allowed me to reveal to my students how I attempted to adapt
my pedagogy in response to their needs. Again, this does not guarantee that I made
the correct decisions; however, thinking publicly about my pedagogy did allow my
students to make their own determinations after reading my intentions and seeing
how I was trying to “walk my talk.”
Finally, modeling self-study through publicly thinking about my pedagogy
offered an unparalleled opportunity for students to learn directly from my fail-
ure. As an example, consider the following reflection written after a particularly
disappointing session of class:
Have you all ever taught a class that you did not even want to be in? That is how I felt for
the first thirty five minutes or so tonight. Just for the record, I don’t blame you all for this
agony as much as I blame my poor planning. I think the trouble started when I introduced
the Wineburg (1997) article by asking the generic question, “What do you all think?,” or
some other such variant. This did not really seem to get us anywhere. So eventually, for
better or worse, I just took it upon myself to try to describe Wineburg’s argument and to
explain what I saw as its implications for assessment. I do not think I was very successful
at this and, worse yet, I do not think that I would have any idea even if I was successful
because I received so little feedback from any of you. Ironically then, I was in a position
where I couldn’t even assess my own teaching on assessment. (November 14, 2006)

6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education 97
In this case my poor planning led to a situation in which I ultimately engaged in
practices that were not conducive to my larger purpose for the seminar or to the type
of learning I desired for the student teachers to experience. I believe my willingness
to share this information was important so as to not send contradictory messages.
Thinking Publicly About Classroom Management
In addition to content and pedagogy, student teachers can also learn about teach-
ing for democratic citizenship from the general classroom management employed
by the teacher educator. Although the nature of the educational system makes it
so, there will likely always be a power differential between teachers and students,
I carefully approached my task in the seminar with a desire to play the role of first
among equals, a posture I felt was more consistent with promoting democracy. I was
conscious of my power and of the ways in which its misuse could undermine stu-
dent learning about democratic citizenship. Thus, as I led the seminar, I attempted to
forge respectful relationships with my students. I tried to make it clear how we had a
responsibility to both honor and challenge the unique knowledge, experiences, and
opinions we each brought with us to our work as teachers.
I tried to set this respectful tone early in the semester. After the second seminar
meeting, I wrote the following reflection:
With regard to the class itself, the first thing that you all probably noticed is that I filmed it
using the same technology that we are asking you to use for your inquiry projects. I made
this decision for a number of reasons. As I have mentioned before, I think that modeling
is an important aspect of teaching. I do not think that you should ask students to do things
that you yourself do not see value in. It is also my hope that, after analyzing some of our
sessions together, I can bring in examples of my own teaching for us to discuss. I think this
is important for my own growth as an educator. I am also secretly hoping to ease some of
your anxieties about the inquiry project by holding my own teaching up as something that
is entirely open for discussion. (October 31, 2006)
Given the stress and time constraints associated with student teaching, the purpose
of this reflection was to let my students know that I would not ask them to engage in
tasks if I did not consider them worthwhile. Moreover, I wanted to send the message
that my practice is not perfect, and, therefore, also open to interrogation.
In spite of my efforts to forge respectful relationships with my students and to run
the seminar as first among equals, the inquiry project referenced in the above reflec-
tion became a major source of contention as the semester progressed. These projects
basically required students to videotape themselves teaching three to four times dur-
ing their student teaching experiences, and to investigate and attempt to improve
some aspect of their practice. After hearing that many had reservations about com-
pleting the projects, I decided to use some of our class time to address their concerns.
Afterward, I wrote the following reflection regarding the whole episode:
This was a tough one for me. I do value all of your feedback, but I did not want this session
of the class to turn into a vent session. I have nothing against venting, but don’t know what
good it does to solve an issue. Because I did not want the class to turn into a vent session,
I drew up some specific things that I wanted to address regarding the inquiry projects and

98 J.K. Ritter
my thinking about them. I was hoping this would clear up any lingering questions and/or
concerns. I remember attempting to clarify the project. I remember trying to explain how the
purpose was not to “play gotcha” with you or your teaching. I started to get into why I saw
value in the projects …and then, before I could get any further, your questions and concerns
started to roll in, and did not cease until it was time to go. Although I am perfectly fine
fielding your questions and concerns, I was not sure if that was the most productive way for
us to move forward. For better or for worse, I had already decided that the inquiry projects
were valuable for us to pursue. Just like you all must make decisions about what you think
is in the best interests of your students, I must make similar decisions in seminar. This does
not necessarily mean that I am correct. However, once the decision is made, I at least feel the
obligation to make sure that you know my rationale for the decision and that you are clear
on what is actually going to be required. I am not sure that I was ever given this chance.
Once you all started to bring up your issues with the inquiry projects, I mostly was forced to
just listen. After a certain amount of listening to your issues and not understanding, I finally
just pleaded something like, “What is the issue with being on camera? Really, what is it?
I just don’t get it. Please explain it to me.” After this plea, it seemed like most of you agreed
that the biggest issue with the project was that it was stretching your time too thin. It did
not seem to me that pedagogy, reflection, or anything else was at the root of your argument.
It was a simple issue of time. For my part, I promised that I could reduce the amount of
time required for classroom assignments to provide more time for these projects. That is all
I know how to do. Again, even if you don’t like my decision, I hope that you can respect it
and trust that I made it with what I believe are your best interests in mind. (September 28,
2006)
The reflection highlights the problem of authority in teaching for democratic citizen-
ship. On the one hand, there was nothing democratic about creating and assigning a
project without seeking student input. On the other hand, I really felt like the project
would help the student teachers to become better teachers. Modeling my thinking
about classroom management gave me the opportunity, at least, to present this argu-
ment. It was important to me that my student teachers knew my decision was not
made lightly.
Perhaps the real learning on classroom management only occurred later in the
semester when I found a way to connect our experience with the inquiry projects to
their own experiences in the schools. I posed the following questions:
What should be expected, and what can be accomplished, when dealing with students such
as yourselves who are in physically and emotionally draining situations? By the way, I don’t
think this is just a concern for us in seminar. After all, how many of you might have been
dealing with students who were also in physically and emotionally draining situations? How
can we, as educators, make sense and/or deal with such situations? It is a good question, I
think, but I am short of answers. I would love to hear from all of you, either regarding your
own experiences in seminar while student teaching, or how you perceived the experiences
of some of your students. (November 09, 2006)
Although I was far from figuring out how to handle the problem of authority in
teaching for democratic citizenship, I was able to present the issue to my student
teachers in such a way that it would not be easy to dismiss. Whether or not they
agreed with how I handled the issue of the inquiry projects in our seminar, I think
important learning occurred when I asked them to reflect on how they handled
similar issues in their classrooms as student teachers.

6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education 99
Discussion
The portrait of practice that emerged in this study proved to be a complex one
fraught with tensions. The previous three sections documented numerous instances
in which I struggled to live my values in my practice as a social studies teacher edu-
cator. It is exactly because of this messiness that modeling self-study with preservice
teachers represents a particularly appropriate means to facilitate their learning about
teaching for democratic citizenship. Although my actual decisions may have been
questionable at times, students were at least able to access my thinking about my
teaching after each seminar via my public reflections. They were able to see how I
was attempting to be responsive toward their issues and concerns while also trying
to stay true to my ideals as a teacher educator. They were able to see how I was
struggling internally to match my practice with my ideals.
In this way modeling self-study effectively let my student teachers in on my
learning problem. This seems powerful for at least two reasons. First, in the imme-
diate sense, the student teachers in my seminar could learn about teaching for
democratic citizenship using my practice as a site for their inquiry. In a larger sense,
however, it is my hope that I also provided them with a model of reflective practice
to carry over with them into their roles as teachers. Given these outcomes, per-
haps more important for student learning than engaging in the “correct practices”
is for social studies teacher educators to be willing to reveal their vulnerability by
exposing how their decisions were meant to be purposeful and responsive to student
learning about teaching for democratic citizenship, and encouraging questioning
and critique around these efforts.
In no way does this mean that teacher educators should be excused for engaging
in cavalier or deficient practices. To this end it should be noted that another benefit
of modeling self-study, besides facilitating student learning about teaching, is that
it can be used to improve the teaching of teacher educators. As indicated earlier,
there were several changes I made in my practice during the seminar as a result of
what I learned through my self-study. In addition, as I reviewed my data for the
third or fourth time for the purpose of this chapter, I recognized yet another area
for improvement that somehow escaped my attention in action during the semester.
I realized the connections I made to democratic citizenship—what I deemed as the
purpose of both my practice and the purpose of social studies—were not always
very strong or clear to my students in my written reflections.
Although I did a good job of explicitly modeling my decision making by making
clear my choices and the reasons for them, I failed to incorporate two potentially
more powerful forms of modeling (Lunenberg, Korthagen, & Swennen, 2007). One
of these builds on explicit modeling by also providing preservice teachers with
opportunities to think of how the teaching modeled might be applied to different
teaching situations. The other encourages preservice teachers to establish links
between practice and theory by connecting exemplary behavior modeled as part
of the teacher educator’s pedagogy with the public theory that supports it. These
two forms of modeling are desirable because of their focus on preservice teachers

100 J.K. Ritter
actively constructing personal understandings of teaching rooted in established
theory.
Unfortunately I did not fully capitalize on these forms of modeling to make
stronger connections to democratic citizenship as I was apparently fooled into
thinking my student teachers would simply see the same connections as me. The
discovery of such an egregious error represents both the peril and promise of engag-
ing in self-study. In the end, while it can still be claimed that modeling self-study
in social studies teacher education represents a means to facilitate learning about
teaching for democratic citizenship, the teacher educator should be prepared for the
learning to be his or her own.
References
Berry, A. (2004). Self-study in teaching about teaching. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton,
V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and
teacher education practices (pp. 1295–1332). Dordrecht: Springer.
Berry, A., & Loughran, J. (2005). Teaching about teaching: The role of self-study. In C. Mitchell,
S. Weber, & K. O’Reilly-Scanlon (Eds.), Just who do we think we are?: Methodologies for
autobiography and self-study in teaching (pp. 168–180). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Beyer, L. E., Feinberg, W., Pagano, J., & Whitson, J. A. (1989). Preparing teachers as profes-
sionals: The role of educational studies and other liberal disciplines . NY: Teachers College
Press.
Bullock, S. M. (2007). Finding my way from teacher to teacher educator: Valuing innovative ped-
agogy and inquiry into practice. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of
teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 77–94). New York: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher
education . New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1993). Shattered images: Understanding expectations and realities
of field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9 , 457–471.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1995). Methods and issues in a life history approach to self-study.
In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher
education (131–151). London: Falmer.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1998). Reforming teacher education through self-study. In
A. L. Cole, R. Elijah, & J. G. Knowles (Eds.), The heart of the matter: Teacher educators
and teacher education reform (pp. 41–54). San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap.
Counts, G. S. (1978). Dare the school build a new social order? Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press. (Original work published 1932)
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education . New York: Simon and Schuster. (Original work
published 1938)
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work
published 1916)
Dewey, J. (2006). My pedagogic creed. In E. F. Provenzo, Jr., (Ed.), Critical issues in education:
An anthology of readings (pp. 22–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Reprinted from The School
Journal, 54, 77–80, January 1897)
Ducharme, E., & Kluender, M. (1990). The RATE study: The faculty. Journal of Teacher
Education, 44 , 45–49.
Erben, M. (1998). Biography and research method. In R. G. Burgess (Series Ed.) & M. Erben (V ol.
Ed.), Biography and education: A reader (pp. 4–17). London: Falmer.

6 Modeling Self-Study in Social Studies Teacher Education 101
Ginsburg, M. B., & Clift R. T. (1990). The hidden curriculum of preservice teacher education. In
W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 450–465). New York:
Macmillan.
Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-
S m i t h&K .M .Z e i c h n e r( E d s . ) , Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on
research and teacher education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heaton, R. M., & Lampert, M. (1993). Learning to hear voices: Inventing a new pedagogy of
teacher education. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for
understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 43–83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Hess, D. E. (2005). How do teachers’ political views influence teaching about controversial issues?
Social Education, 69, 47–48.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Lunenberg, M. (2005). Teaching teachers—Studies into the exper-
tise of teacher educators: An introduction to this theme issue. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21, 107–115.
Kosnik, C. (2007). Still the same yet different: Enduring values and commitments in my work as
a teacher and a teacher educator. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of
teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 16–30). New York: Routledge.
Koster, B., Brekelmans, M., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2005). Quality requirements for teacher
educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 , 157–176.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004). Afterword. Moving the methodology of self-study research and prac-
tice forward: Challenges and opportunities. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K.
LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher
education practices (pp. 1169–1184). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lanier, J., & Little, J. (1986). Research in teacher education. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 527–569). New York: Macmillan.
Leming, J. S., & Ellington, L. (2003). Passion without progress: What’s wrong with social studies
education? In J. Leming, L. Ellington, & K. Porter-Magee (Eds.), Where did social studies go
wrong? (pp. i–vi). Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation.
Levstik, L. S. (2008). What happens in social studies classrooms? Research on k-12 social stud-
ies practice. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies
education (pp. 50–62). New York: Routledge.
Loughran, J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education prac-
tices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Loughran, J. (2005). Researching teaching about teaching: Self-study of teacher education
practices. Studying Teacher Education, 1, 5–16.
Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and
pedagogy in teacher education . London: Falmer.
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 , 586–601.
Northfield, J., & Gunstone, R. (1997). Teacher education as a process of developing teacher knowl-
edge. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion, and
pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 48–56). London: Falmer.
Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life . New York: Teachers
College Press.
Parker, W. C. (2008). Knowing and doing in democratic citizenship education. In L. S. Levstik &
C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 65–80). New York:
Routledge.
Ritter, J. K. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from
classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3, 5–22.
Ritter, J. K. (2009). Developing a vision of teacher education: How my classroom teacher
understandings evolved in the university environment. Studying Teacher Education, 5, 45–60.

102 J.K. Ritter
Ross, E. W. (2006). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social
studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (3rd ed., pp. 17–36). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Russell, T. (2002). Can self-study improve teacher education? In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.),
Improving teacher education practices through self-study (pp. 3–9). New York: Routledge
Falmer.
Salas, K. D., Tenorio, R., Walters, S., & Weiss, D. (Eds.). (2004). The new teacher book:
Finding purpose, balance, and hope during your first years in the classroom. Milwaukee, WI:
Rethinking Schools.
Samaras, A. (2002). Self-study for teacher educators: Crafting a pedagogy for educational change.
New York: Peter Lang.
Samaras, A. P., Hicks, M. A., & Garvey Berger, J. (2004). Self-study through personal history. In
J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 905–942). Dordrecht: Springer.
Singer, A. J. (2003). Social studies for secondary schools: Teaching to learn, learning to teach
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tidwell, D., & Fitzgerald, L. (2004). Self-study as teaching. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V .
K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher
education practices (pp. 69–102). Dordrecht: Springer.
Vinson, K. D., & Ross, E. W. (2001). In search of the social studies curriculum: Standardization,
diversity, and a conflict of appearances. In W. B. Stanley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies
research for the 21st century (pp. 39–71). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Whitehead, J. (1993). The growth of educational knowledge: Creating your own living educational
theories. Bournemouth: Hyde.
Wineburg, S. (1997). Beyond “breadth and depth”: Subject matter knowledge and assessment.
Theory Into Practice ,36, 255–261.
Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York: Macmillan.

Chapter 7
Internationalising Social Studies Programmes
Through Self-Study
Libby Tudball
One of the greatest challenges that all teacher educators face is ensuring that our
classes and programmes meet the learning needs of our students. We must prepare
them to be effective teachers who can be responsive to current and future educational
concerns and issues. Australian national curriculum documents state that it is core
work for schools to prepare students to function effectively in their personal and
vocational lives in local and national settings, as well as in the wider global context.
The Declaration on educational goals for young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008)
recognises that
Global integration and international mobility have increased rapidly in the past decade. As
a consequence, new and exciting opportunities for Australians are emerging. This heightens
the need to nurture an appreciation of and respect for social, cultural and religious diversity,
and a sense of global citizenship. (pp. 4–5)
These goals are not uniquely Australian, since the impact of globalisation has a
broad reach across the world. I do believe however, that the goals create impera-
tives for me as a social studies teacher educator. So, in recent years, I have been
increasingly conscious of the need to study my own practice in achieving these
goals (Edwards & Tudball, 2002). In my social studies method classes in under-
graduate and graduate courses in an Australian education faculty, I teach groups of
local students whose whole life experience has been in Australia, as well as many
from diverse backgrounds including fee paying international students from coun-
tries within Asia and Europe and from Canada and the United States, and recent
immigrants from the Asia-Pacific region, Africa and many other parts of the world.
Students in Australian schools and universities are now more likely than ever
before to be a mix of “global nomads”; young people who move across borders and
nations, along with other students whose lifestyles and views are the product of a
rich range of cultures and experiences related to family backgrounds, ethnicity, reli-
gion or travel. When our student teachers are involved in their teaching practicum,
they gain teaching experience in schools that also reflect a high level of diversity.
L. Tudball (B)
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
e-mail: Libby.Tudball@Education.monash.edu.au
103 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_7, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

104 L. Tudball
Some Australian schools can still be reasonably described as white Anglo-Saxon
dominant, whereas others have multicultural student populations from as many as
30 different nationalities. The multicultural nature of many Australian school pop-
ulations has increased the need for schools to embrace international understanding.
Recently, waves of migrant groups have arrived from the Sudan, India and Burma,
and have settled into many school communities. I agree with Tsolidis’ (2002) view
that
Our classrooms need to be democratic spaces …in which students can share, exchange and
experiment with culture …All students need to know how to function between cultures,
not just within one, albeit one associated with dominance. (pp. 224–225)
It is our responsibility as teacher educators to develop programmes that pay atten-
tion to these realities, and include intercultural and international dimensions in the
curriculum, so that programmes are inclusive of all students’ needs and experience
(Edwards & Tudball, 2000; Tudball, 2003).
Internationalisation of education is firmly on the agenda for schools in Australia.
In the state of Victoria, the Essential learning standards, (VCAA, 2005) and the
Blueprint for schools (VCAA, 2004) encourage whole school planning and rethink-
ing of curriculum, so that students “can make sense of the world in which they live,
and effectively participate in that world” (VCAA, 2005, foreword). This means that
teacher education programmes should prepare beginning teachers to achieve these
goals. Curriculum development needs to reflect the reality that schools
…are indeed more international ; with students who feel that they belong to ,a r e connected
with,o ra r e concerned about , issues that relate to multiple nations, and transcend national
boundaries. Students in schools require and deserve an intercultural education that encour-
ages recognition of anddialogue about different cultures and global concerns. (Tudball,
2005, p. 10)
As our beginning teachers graduate and enter the profession, they may begin their
teaching careers anywhere in Australia and the wider world. Regardless of where
they teach, they need the knowledge, skills and capacities to understand and respond
to the global flows of students, ideas and information that characterise education in
an increasingly internationalised world. In addition, it is my view that we should
prepare our students to be able to teach about issues of global concern includ-
ing sustainability, climate change, social justice, human rights, global ethics and
peace in school programmes. As social studies teacher educators, we have a partic-
ular responsibility to engage our students in these vital areas of the curriculum.
A socio-culturally parochial and localised teacher education curriculum cannot
prepare students for the internationalisation of education. As Tsolidis (2001) argues,
…We need to engage with reciprocal and egalitarian cross-cultural curriculum and ped-
agogy. …It is no longer a matter of “us” providing “them” with something “they” need.
Instead, the consumer cooperative classroom requires a mutually beneficial relationship for
all involved. (p. 105)

7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through Self-Study 105
Internationalising the Curriculum: An On-Going Self-Study
In recent years, as part of my ongoing self-study where I question my own prac-
tice, I have analysed whether I am adequately preparing my students to work, teach
and live in a diverse world, and have sought the frank views of my students in
this process. I also continue to reflect on whether the teaching and learning content
and strategies I use in my social studies education classes sufficiently engages my
students in what can de defined as an international curriculum.
Cranton (2001) argues that
The authentic teacher understands who she is as a teacher, works well and clearly with her
own style, and continues to reflect on her practice, grow, and develop …we each individ-
ually find our own place within these perspectives through questioning, contemplation and
reflection on our basic nature, preferences, experience, and values. (pp. 36–41)
As well, Sanderson (2007) calls for a greater connection “between the fleeting,
superficial, popular, and spontaneous use of cosmopolitan and a deeper appreci-
ation of, and subscription to cosmopolitanism as a way of life, and an integral
part of a teacher’s personal and professional values” (p. 1). My study draws on
Cranton’s (2001) ideas on becoming an authentic teacher of internationalisation
in higher education, through critical reflection and self-reflection, and Sanderson’s
(2007) opinion that “individual teachers need to internationalize their personal and
professional outlooks” (p. 277).
I believe that I need to reflect in my programmes the reality raised in “Global
Perspectives: A Statement on Global Education for Australian schools” (Curriculum
Corporation, 2002) that
…In Australia and worldwide, it …(is) ever more widely accepted that issues of global
poverty and development, human rights and social justice, environmental challenges, peace
and conflict, and thinking about and creating better futures, are inextricably linked. A
future-focused curriculum demands approaches which see these interconnections, and fos-
ters knowledge, skills and values to equip young people to involve themselves in building
solutions. (p. 1)
Therefore, in my self-study, I attempt to develop strategies to “reframe” (Schön,
1987) and internationalise my curriculum in the Studies of Society and Environment
(SOSE) Method programme, through collaborative action research involving the
active participation of my students. Initially I worked over one semester with a
volunteer group of my 4th year students to define what the internationalisation of
education might mean in theory and practice, through shared reading and discus-
sion. In the next semester I attempted to explore the ideas by modelling what we
agreed to be elements of an internationalised curriculum in practice, in my lectures
and workshops. This year, I took a more risky step, and opened the semester by
asking students in the first session to look critically at the published programme I
had already formally developed, and to offer their views on whether the outline and
stated objectives would meet their needs.
Several students’ responses demonstrated to me that I needed to reframe some of
my approaches immediately. One student from Mauritius expressed little interest in

106 L. Tudball
local curriculum, as he intends to return to his home country at the conclusion of the
course. Two other students had already signed up as teachers with non-government
organisations in Africa, and commented that the course appeared to have little con-
nection to the learning of students in a third world space. One student had been
accepted into an offshore practicum in the Cook Islands, and others were travelling
to South Africa and Korea for 3 weeks’ teaching experiences. I realised that they
deserved some kind of preparation for the curriculum they might be teaching, and
an opportunity to develop their intercultural understanding. Their needs encouraged
me to think about how we could address the question of differentiated curriculum,
for diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts. One student noted that “the local
curriculum now encourages us to think about how we can integrate personal and
social learning and civics and citizenship education (CCE) into school programs, so
we need to further explore this area.” David noted that his awareness had been raised
about CCE, but he believed he needed further opportunities to develop a deeper
understanding of pedagogy in this field. I was reminded that there is an increasing
literature researching the distinction between formal and informal school learning
(see, for instance, the work of Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007) and that
my classes should include discussions about the part that social studies educators
might play in organising Amnesty International clubs or student participation activ-
ities that often occur beyond the formal classroom context. Others asked if we could
look more at curriculum such as the International Baccalaureate, which is in fact
the fastest growing curriculum in the world, as well as World Atlantic schools and
UNESCO models. Once again, my views, informed by my students, by education
policy, global realities and my own sense of curriculum priorities, pointed to the
need for internationalisation.
So I began to negotiate the curriculum with my whole cohort of social studies
preservice teacher education students, taking on board their rich ideas about cur-
riculum priorities outlined above. First there was a need to respond to the students
who will not teach the local Australian curriculum. We agreed that we needed to
go beyond the easy step of accessing curriculum documents from other countries
such as Mauritius and the offshore placement countries. Several students agreed
to take responsibility for gathering copies of courses and study designs to answer
the questions; what is the focus of each social studies curriculum, what teaching
and learning strategies are possible in these contexts and what different kinds of
preparation would be required? Rich conversations were generated amongst all the
students about the need for them to think about the challenges of being away from
access to Internet resources, how they might teach with limited print resources,
and how they could more adequately prepare themselves before their departures.
Some students took the initiative to contact staff and past students who had prior
experience in these contexts, and they continued to share their learning with
us all.
A differentiated curriculum model is now in place where, in many sessions, stu-
dents are involved in their own research as individuals, in pairs or in small groups,
depending on the varying level of interest in topics. They are researching and inves-
tigating social studies topics that interest them, frequently searching Web-based
resources, and also reflecting on their experiences from school practicum stories.

7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through Self-Study 107
The students’ research has lead to very engaging shared presentations and learning.
This student-centred and independent learning focus has encouraged me to let go
and cease being the fount of their knowledge. I have moved more into the role of
learning facilitator and “discussant provocateur”, so that their learning is unpacked
and reflexive.
In this chapter I look back and explore aspects of the journey in this self-study
and its emerging findings and recommendations from my perspective, and through
the inclusion of my students’ voices. Discussion essentially includes reflection on
how and why I tried to develop my social studies method programmes to achieve the
goals for my students to be (1) ready and able to teach anywhere in the world, (2)
able to define international issues they should focus on as social studies teachers, (3)
able to authentically internationalise curriculum, (4) able to understand and engage
with the lived experiences of internationalisation in our midst and in our schools,
and (5) able to develop intercultural competencies.
Where I Began: Defining the Scope of Internationalisation
A strong motivation for my engagement in this self-study was initially the increasing
numbers of international students flooding into Australian higher education institu-
tions. Universities needed to provide support for these students. The Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1994) states that an interna-
tionalised curriculum requires
An international orientation in content, aimed at preparing students for performing (profes-
sionally/socially) in an international and multicultural context, and designed for domestic
students as well as foreign students (p. 5).
When I commenced this self-study, I believed that this definition provided important
parameters for education that I was not fully achieving through the content and
approaches in my existing courses.
Even with this initial definition and focus, I felt the need to search for a broader
conceptual framework for internationalisation that would be relevant to teacher edu-
cation and schools, since my work as a teacher educator puts me at the intersection
of the secondary and tertiary school levels. Knight (2006) defines internationalisa-
tion as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension
into the purpose, functions or delivery of education ….” (p. 1) Clearly inter-
nationalising education requires education responses at various levels including
through
•curriculum content and pedagogy—including pedagogies that respond to cultur-
ally diverse classrooms
•school and system capacity building including school and system development,
teacher professional development, mindsets and values and
•providing the opportunities, plus intercultural and technical skills, to link schools,
teachers and students to their peers around the world

108 L. Tudball
Further, Knight’s (1999) “Approaches to Internationalisation” provides a useful
conceptual framework that was developed for application at the Higher Education
level, but is equally pertinent for analysis of school level programmes. This model
was discussed by the students in the first phase of the study that is the focus of the
next section.
Approaches to Internationalisation (Knight, 1999)
Activity:
Curriculum development, student/faculty exchanges, international students
Competency:
Development of new skills, knowledge, values, attitudes in students, faculty
and staff. Interest in defining global/international competencies grows.
Ethos:
Creation of a culture or climate on campus, which promotes and supports
international/intercultural initiatives.
Process:
Integration or infusion of international/intercultural dimensions into a combi-
nation of a range of activities, policies and procedures.
(p. 15)
The First Phase of the Self-Study
I was keen to engage my students in answering the questions they had raised them-
selves. So, in my self-study, I attempted to hand more responsibility for the learning
and collection of resources over to the students, so that they could work with me
in inquiring into the issue of internationalisation. As Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998)
noted, “the work of self-study acknowledges …and rejoices in the uncertainty of
the current world” (p. 235). I was prepared to question my curriculum and invite
my students to “collaborate” (as per the efforts of Jeff Northfield in his return to
classroom teaching, see Loughran & Northfield, 1996) with me in the process of
reframing my teaching and learning approaches.
Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998) categorise the purpose for self-studies accord-
ing to the levels of concern the study addresses. They argue that micro-levels of

7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through Self-Study 109
self-study are local; they begin from the immediate context of the classroom. Self-
studies that begin from “macro-levels” are initiated from more global concerns such
as promoting social justice in schools through work with student teachers. In this
self-study of my attempts to internationalise my social studies teacher education
method, I boldly attempted to study both micro and macro elements. The remainder
of this chapter explores some of the outcomes of these attempts.
Students’ Views at the Start of the Self-Study and What They
Made Me Consider
I began at the beginning of the semester by conducting two audio-taped round table
discussions with a small volunteer group of my final year Studies of Society and
Environment (SOSE) method students. Through the first discussion, I wanted to find
out my students’ views about internationalisation. I asked the group, “What do you
think is meant by the internationalisation of education?” Their views demonstrated
a range of opinions on the scope of the concept. David believed it involved, “ …
making sure that we look at issues that matter to students anywhere in the world.”
Liz had far more developed views of the concept, and was sure that
It is about helping students to be tolerant, accepting, able to form cross-cultural relation-
ships, and develop understandings of a range of cultures. Study abroad and exchange
programs are probably the ideal way for students to learn international understanding …
but clearly this isn’t always possible.
As the discussion unfolded, I was surprised by the thoughtful and mature insights
expressed by the students, and could see that moving from what internationalisation
might mean to how this could be enacted in teacher education classroom practice
would be challenging.
Other comments led me to even more conclusions. Jenny articulated the view
that “There are real tensions between a curriculum dominated by European,
Anglo-Celtic or Australian emphases, and the development of a truly international
curriculum. No one point of view should dominate.” From this type of response, I
found that I started to look more carefully at who my students were, and where they
were from. I also began to ask them to articulate their thoughts about where they
might go to teach in the future.
Comments from others made me realise that I needed to more fully utilise my
students’ own experiences to enrich learning for all of us. Chris had spent time in
intensive English language schools for new arrivals, and he alerted the group to the
reality he observed that
…overseas or immigrant students are often expected to assimilate to the dominant cul-
ture and sometimes have little or no opportunity to explore non-Western traditions in their
studies or in their social life here in Australia.
We talked avidly about how we could be more culturally inclusive through using
literature, stories and case studies from the students’ home countries, or by access-
ing online newspapers from across the world to provide more diverse insights.

110 L. Tudball
Nobuhiro, an international student, agreed that his home context and future needs
as a teacher often seemed to be ignored. He commented that
I suppose it’s about meeting the needs of international students like me. I could go back
to teach a different curriculum in Japan, but I should be able to do that after my teacher
education here since I am paying a lot of money for a qualification that is supposed to
prepare me to teach anywhere.
John argued that
Our students will be faced with many opportunities to live and to work internationally, and
will be members of the competitive international workforce of the future, so they need the
knowledge and skills to be at ease in those settings.
From these and other views like these expressed in this initial stage of my self-study,
I learned a great deal. I realised that my students interpreted internationalisation
in a variety of ways, and they did not need me to construct or deliver a view of
internationalisation for them. I concluded that they were conscious of cross-cultural
issues, the need for diverse content, issues of difference and sameness, and future
perspectives.
Next, I asked the students if they believed their method studies so far had pre-
pared them to teach an internationalised curriculum in a diverse world. Chris firmly
stated his view that “we need to do a lot more to be able to tackle this issue of
internationalisation.” David’s comments raised a concern that teacher educators in
graduate programmes often struggle with in developing the scope and sequence of
programmes:
We focused very strongly in the first part of the course on the nuts and bolts of teaching,
how you plan, local curriculum documents, teaching techniques, getting ready to teach in
schools, but we should be better prepared to teach various students, and in other parts of the
world.
Liz said there could be more of a focus on internationalisation as a concept
because
We have touched on big picture questions like meeting the needs of overseas students in
our classes, and helping students develop real life skills that will matter in an increasingly
globalized world. But I don’t think these issues have been a strong focus in your class, or
any others in the course. Sometimes in method we just get to the awareness raising stage …
and time doesn’t allow us to go into greater depth.
I was not surprised by these comments. They only reinforced my prior view that I
needed to develop strategies to tackle these issues.
Going Further with the Self-Study
Wilkes (1998) argued that one possible framework for engaging in self-study is to
“follow a theme that appears repeatedly in the literature in one’s own field or in
one’s teaching practice, and to turn that theme inwards and use it as a vehicle for

7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through Self-Study 111
exploration” (p. 27). This was what I attempted to do in my study of internation-
alisation. I suggested readings, and encouraged the students to find views in the
literature on the internationalisation of the curriculum to share and discuss. I pro-
vided them with Knight’s (1999) model, and discussed with them the extent to which
they had already seen instances of this model in practice in schools. One student
found and reported to the class the following statement from the World Council for
Curriculum and Instruction (2003) that argues the case, with a sense of urgency and
mission, that young people must be empowered with greater understandings about
the interdependency of the world. The views stress the need for students to develop
values encompassing social awareness and a commitment to our common humanity,
in their local settings and the wider world.
As members of the world community, educators have a responsibility to ensure that educa-
tion contributes to the promotion of equity, peace, social justice and the universal realization
of human rights. …curriculum and instructional programs …should aim to develop in
every person self-respect, social awareness, and the capacity to participate at all levels of
world society, from the local to global. (p. 1)
As a beginning teacher educator, I fell into the trap of too often “telling” my stu-
dents possible answers, and always delivering the content that I thought they needed.
Berry (2004) reminds us of the tensions teacher educators struggle with as we try to
work out when we should tell, and when we should try to encourage our students to
think and learn independently. While it was risky to hand the inquiry into interna-
tionalisation over to the students, it meant they were given the chance to uncover the
issues, and link the theory of an internationalised curriculum to the question of how
they might enact internationalisation in practice in schools. Rather than me defining
the focus, I saw them asking difficult questions themselves including the following:
Why and how should the school curriculum be internationalised? And, what should
an internationalised curriculum include?
I gave the students 8 weeks to research and develop interactive presentations
demonstrating their views on internationalisation. In that time, we had other ses-
sions on issues that were related to the bigger questions, for instance, a guest lecturer
from the Asia Education Foundation introduced the students to outstanding text-
and Internet-based resources for schools on developing studies of Asia across the
curriculum (see Asia Education Foundation, 2009). She encouraged my students to
critique the resources and suggest how they could use them effectively in classes
of students with varied ages and abilities. Both the content and the pedagogies they
explored encouraged deeper questioning and reflection. The students explored the
“Go Korea” Website (Tudball & Glass, 2007) that expects school students to under-
take inquiry-based investigations of traditional and contemporary Korean life. They
expanded their own knowledge of Korean life, and could see the potential of this
resource to broaden classroom students’ knowledge and understanding of one of
Australia’s major trading partners. The guest lecturer also challenged the social
studies method students to recognise major shifts in world power through the rise of
China and India, and emphasised the need for them to keep abreast of world affairs
in order to be effective teachers.

112 L. Tudball
When I commenced my self-study, two international students told me that I had
included nothing in my course about curriculum in other countries. I was embar-
rassed to admit that I was caught in that parochial and localised approach to teacher
education, that I knew I wanted to avoid. In response to this specific criticism,
I developed a WebQuest where students utilised the Internet to explore social stud-
ies, civics and citizenship education and curriculum in other countries in pairs and
small groups and to share their learning.
Although I did attempt to structure opportunities for my students to engage in
self-directed learning, I also believe that as a teacher educator I can at times assist
the students to construct meanings by providing them with access to theories and
resources I am aware of, that they may not uncover themselves. As Korthagen and
Kessels (1999) argued, “Now and then student teachers should be helped to see the
larger picture of educational knowledge” (p. 7). So, I presented them with Pike and
Selby’s (1988) longstanding views arguing the case for the internationalisation of
education. Pike and Selby (1988) believed that students should learn about global,
ecological, social, technological, economic and political issues, through a model
that included learning “for,” “through” and “about” global perspectives, in order to
understand the world and their connections with it though a broad range of activities
that include
•experiential learning in which students learn from their own and other people’s
experiences and feelings
•inquiry learning in which students form hypotheses, devise questions, determine
how and where to obtain information, critically analyse their findings, take action
and reflect upon outcomes [and]
•collaborative learning where students work in pairs, small groups or larger
groups, cooperating and negotiating to solve problems or achieve intended
outcomes (pp. 49–50).
Further, they suggested that students could experience what they are learn-
ing through the very nature of the classroom environment, for example, through
students’ and teachers’ clear respect of each other’s rights and awareness of respon-
sibilities, and teachers’ modelling of appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours.
I encouraged my students to suggest how to apply these kinds of teaching models
in their attempts to develop internationalised practice. They commented that Pike
and Selby’s (1988) work provided a valuable framework. This reinforced my view
that while the students should learn independently, I have a clear role to play in
extending and encouraging their thinking and sharing resources. There needs to be
a balance in our work as teacher educators between telling, modelling, sharing and
encouraging the students to discover for themselves and with their peers. I see it as
an important goal for teacher educators to ensure that we talk about these tensions
with our students, so that they also are able to think critically about how they will
facilitate student-centred learning and meta cognition when they begin to teach in
schools.

7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through Self-Study 113
The Next Step: The Students Present Their Ideas
The students developed presentations as part of their formal assessment for the sub-
ject. I saw the need to give some official recognition of their thoughtful and serious
connection with this project. Liz began her group’s presentation with this powerful
statement:
A school curriculum that does not find space for tackling big global questions, cannot pre-
pare students adequately for the kind of world they are facing. The profile of our student
populations also necessitates an internationalised curriculum. Confronting issues such as
the events of September 11, the war in Iraq and its aftermath, and terrorism in Bali, were
all brought vividly to students of all ages on television screens and through all facets of the
media. These events cannot be ignored in school classrooms. Young people should not be
expected to carry on studying less relevant curriculum issues when events of such magni-
tude occur. There are sensitive ways that teachers can allow students to explore the questions
which concern them, and we should be doing more on this in our social studies programs.
The group presented a range of “big picture issues” and suggestions for tackling
them in practice using integrated studies approaches that encompassed past, present
and future issues. They suggested tackling a theme based on a question such as the
following: How can we tackle the issue of water shortages, from local, national and
global perspectives?
David’s group argued that in an internationalised curriculum, teachers should
focus on issues and skill development utilising activities students commonly pursue:
We should ask our students about matters that are important to them, and encourage them to
think critically. They need the skills to assess information they read and gather on the web.
They all enjoy using mobile phones and hotmail, so we should make those activities part of
lessons, and make connections with schools in other parts of the world.
Chris warned that “we must remember to find opportunities to increase interna-
tional understanding in our local classrooms, working more honestly and explicitly
with international students and by encouraging cooperative strategies and team work
amongst our students.” His group was concerned that “the voice of students who are
newly arrived, or those whose English skills were limited, can easily be marginal-
ized, so there should be more emphasis, for example, on strategies that use more
film and pictures rather than text based resources.”
From watching them present and considering what they said, I learned once
again, that a student-centred, inquiry-based, investigative approach to teacher edu-
cation not only models effective strategies that can empower my students to be
better teachers, but also leads to greater satisfaction with my programmes. I was
determined to respond to the suggestions and thoughts that the students shared. The
student presentations were recorded, with their permission, and I took notes as the
students spoke; so I was able to go back and think more critically about their views.
For example, Liz laid out a clear challenge for social studies teachers to respond
to major world events as they unfold. Then we discussed what kinds of strategies
can be used to ensure that this happens including using newspapers, YouTube clips
and current affairs radio programmes as resources, and encouraging school stu-
dents to make their own TV chat shows or documentaries on these issues. David’s

114 L. Tudball
comments provoked debate about how information and communication technolo-
gies (ICTs) can be used. So, this year we explored the practical implications of
the local education department’s view that “Integrating ICT can help teachers and
leaders expand learning possibilities to create effective contemporary learning envi-
ronments, where students and teachers use technology purposefully and flexibly to
improve student learning outcomes” (State of Victoria, Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development, 2007) The education Website provides online
learning for students to explore how to use blogs,1wikis,2podcasting,3interactive
whiteboards,4and other ideas for working with the Web, including advice on how
to ensure the development of a cybersafe classroom, the school resource for the
safe and ethical use of technology. We concluded that these ICT strategies also pro-
vide scope for internationalisation, through greater access to global resources and
connections between students and teachers around the world.
Students’ Deepening Understandings of Internationalisation
Since negotiating the curriculum with my social studies class this year, we have con-
tinued to share in the process of “internationalising”. In responding to the students’
requests for further sessions on civics and citizenship education, students researched
what CCE policies and practice are being developed in Scotland, Hong Kong, USA
and Denmark, as well as in local programmes in Australia.
After all of the work with internationalising this year, I noticed that my local
students appeared to be more engaged in our workshops with their international
peers, and there was more recognition of the diverse forms of knowledge students
can contribute. The explicit focus on internationalisation seemed to heighten their
understanding of the scope of social studies curriculum. I had more students than in
the past volunteer to be involved in homework and volunteer programmes in local
multicultural schools, and the students were particularly receptive to my suggestion
that we invite lecturers from a national global education programme to run work-
shops in our social studies classes. Sue said that before the course she hadn’t really
thought about the fact that
As teachers we need to be able to make balanced judgments on issues, and we need to be
informed about diverse and different points of view. I think this course has shaken me out
of complacency, and made me realize that if I am to teach any where in the world, I have to
be open minded and ready to continually learn new ideas.
As well, David commented that through the whole student-centred research project,
“We took this issue seriously. Internationalisation shouldn’t be a token inclusion,
like having the odd day of eating souvlaki or sushi, and dressing up in national
1http://www.education.vic.gov.au/teacher/blogs.htm
2http://www.education.vic.gov.au/teacher/wiki.htm
3http://www.education.vic.gov.au/teacher/podcasting.htm
4http://epotential.education.vic.gov.au/showcase/index.php?showcase_id =55

7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through Self-Study 115
costumes. It should be a lived experience and something we strive to connect to
all topics.”
From these comments and others like them, I could see tangible evidence of the
students capably translating theory into practice, and developing a range of views
about the application of principles of internationalisation in their teaching. After
the students’ classroom presentations, the conversations about internationalisation
continued. I noticed that the students continued to make connections to the concept
as we moved on to other topics. At the end of semester, the students shared these
views on the progress we had made in internationalisation. Liz said that by focusing
on the concept
I think we have had very clear messages that we need to do more than tolerate overseas
students and students from varied backgrounds, we need to celebrate and include their
perspectives in what we do in our classrooms.
Chris commented that
There is an assumption that everyone who goes into teaching is a left wing greenie capable
of thinking critically about issues of social justice, the environment, and the future of the
world. I have been in classes this year where students have expressed views that really
worry me, because they are closed, uncritical and unrepresentative of core values in the
community, but in social studies method you encouraged us to develop a critical stance. We
learned to use inquiry methodology that encourages kids we teach to take that critical stance
as well.
What Did I Learn from My Students?
My self-study led to me reframing my course to introduce internationalisation of the
curriculum as a specific and core theme overlaying my whole programme. I took a
risk in handing the issue over to the students, and asking them to define and present
the theoretical and practical issues, rather than lecturing them or showing them how
I felt the topics should unfold. I learned that my students’ learning can be enhanced
by being presented with this challenge while still valuing my expertise and reference
to resources. In reflecting on the semester, Jenny said,
…I have really developed my views about how we can engage young people in issues that
matter to them and their future lives, and I have developed confidence in myself as a teacher
to be able find out about curriculum in other countries.
In the final discussion at the end of the course, the students had some clear advice
for me about what I should do in my method programme in the future. Jenny said
that “the next theme we need to explore is how to develop strategies emphasiz-
ing sustainability, and we should teach these issues in an integrated manner.” They
encouraged me to continue to expect the class to investigate, utilise online resources,
share experiences, decide directions and take responsibility for their learning. Chris
suggested that
International students studying higher degrees in our faculty should be used as a resource
to learn more about teaching and learning in other countries in our method area …and you
should keep encouraging us to ask hard questions and develop our own responses.

116 L. Tudball
There is no doubt that this self-study has helped me develop as a teacher educator
in many ways. I am more responsive to my students’ needs, but at the same time
I see myself more as a learning facilitator. This semester I cancelled the lecture
component of the course to enable more extended student-centred workshops, and I
made sure that my classes were scheduled in a computer lab with fast access to the
Internet for all students.
Conclusions
In my conscious attempts to develop an internationalised curriculum, I encouraged
my students to construct their own theories and suggestions for practice. Together
we were able to reframe approaches to a range of topics by including international
content and diverse perspectives on curriculum. The self-study showed me that
while I have a role in providing theoretical frameworks for students to consider,
encouraging them to collaborate with me and with each other, and taking respon-
sibility for their learning, has positive outcomes. I would like to use the words of
Kondowe (2001), a South African school principal, in defining international educa-
tion, as a framework for what I strive for in internationalising my teacher education
classes:
World mindedness; open mindedness; the promotion of a sense of global interdependence;
the promotion, conjointly; of a sense of individual and cultural self esteem; the promotion
of a commitment to world peace and development; a relish for the withering of prejudice; a
passion for learning as process and product; respect for, and tolerance of other cultures and
cultural diversity. (p. 6)
After this self-study, I will continue to utilise the process Korthagen (2001) rec-
ommended where my student teachers, “ …explore and refine their own perceptions
(by creating) the opportunity to reflect systematically on the details of their practical
experiences” (p. 29). I agree with Korthagen’s (2001) conclusions that “this is also
important in the process of knowledge development of teacher educators in their
learning about teaching about teaching” (p. 29).
References
Asia Education Foundation. (2009). Asia education foundation . Retrieved from
http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/default.asp , April 13, 2009.
Berry, A. (2004). Self study in teaching about teaching. In J. Loughran, M. L .Hamilton,
V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and
teacher education practices (pp. 1295–1332). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cranton, P. (2001). Becoming an authentic teacher in higher education . Malabar: Krieger
publishing Company.
Curriculum Corporation. (2002). Global perspectives, A statement on global education for
Australian schools . Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Edwards, J., & Tudball, L. (2000). Exoticism or celebration of diversity: Emerging issues in
internationalisation in Victorian secondary schools. Curriculum Perspectives, 20 (1), 25–32.

7 Internationalising Social Studies Programmes Through Self-Study 117
Edwards, J., & Tudball, L. (2002). It must be a two way street. Conference proceedings, Australian
Association for Research in Education, Brisbane, December, 2000.
Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1998). Conclusion: The value and the promise of self-
study. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher
education (pp. 234–246). London: Falmer.
Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In J. Knight & De Wit, H. (Eds.),
Quality and internationalisation in higher education (p. 87). Paris: OECD.
Knight, J. (2006). Internationalisation in the 21st century: Evolution and revolution. In R. Kishun
(Ed.), The internationalisation of higher education in South Africa , Durban, South Africa:
IEASA.
Kondowe, B. (2001). Worldmindedness in Education , unpublished paper.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher
education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the
pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher ,28(4), 4–17.
Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1996). Opening the classroom door: Teacher, researcher, learner .
London: Falmer.
MCEETYA. (2008). The declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_
Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf , April 14, 2009
Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
OECD. (1994). Education in a new international setting: Curriculum development for internation-
alisation: Guidelines for country case study . Paris: OECD (CERI).
Pike, G. & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner . London: Hodder and Stoughton; in
association with the Centre for Global Education, York University.
Sanderson, G. (2007). A Foundation for the internationalisation of the academic self. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 12 (3), 276–307.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
State of Victoria, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2007). ELearning
and ICT. Melbourne, VIC: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/elearning/default.htm ,A p r i l
14, 2009.
Tsolidis, G. (2001). New cultures, new pedagogies: International education and the possibility of
radical pedagogies. Pedagogy, Culture and Society ,9(1), 97–110.
Tsolidis, G. (2002). How do we teach and learn in times when the notion of “global citizenship”
sounds like a cliché? Journal of Research in International Education ,1(2), 213–226.
Tudball, L. (2003, November). Internationalising education: The curriculum challenges for
Schools , IARTV seminar series paper no. 130.
Tudball, L. (2005). Grappling with internationalisation of the curriculum at the secondary school
level: issues and tensions for educators. Australian Journal of Education, 49 , 2005.
Tudball, L., & Glass. L. (2007). Go Korea. In Asia education foundation . Retrieved from
http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/sites/gokorea/index1.html
VCAA (2004). Blueprint for government schools: Future directions for education in the
Victorian government school system . Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority. Retrieved
from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/govrel/reports/blueprint-rpt.doc, April
27, 2010.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2005). Victorian Essential learning
standards. Retrieved from http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/ , March 10, 2006.
Wilkes, G. (1998). Seams of Paradoxes in Teaching. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing
teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 198–207). London: Falmer.
World Council for Curriculum and Instruction. (2003). Mission statement. Retrieved from
http://www.uc.edu/wcci/about_mission_statement.html , August 4, 2004.

Chapter 8
Social Skills in Action: An Ethic of Care
in Social Studies Student Teaching Supervision
Muffet Trout
The theory of ethical care, as explored by Noddings (1986, 2002, 2003), serves
as a framework for understanding relationships between people. In her philosophi-
cal treatise, Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education, Noddings
(2003) describes the experiences one may have when caring for another or helping
another learn how to care, all while striving toward ethical ideals. The purpose of
this chapter is to present an example of pedagogy that brings ethical care to the
forefront of student teaching supervision, what I refer to as a pedagogy of care.
Additionally the aim is to demonstrate how self-study methodology enabled me, a
student teaching supervisor, to explore systematically my pedagogy of care to better
understand my practice and my self as a teacher educator in the social studies.
In this chapter I explore my relationship with one student teacher in particular.1
Together we traveled into territory he would describe as “risky.” From the study
I learned that incorporating ethical care into my practice encouraged me to facil-
itate collaborative learning experiences for the student teacher and for me. It also
prompted me to value the student teacher’s perspectives on teaching and to create
opportunities for him to practice considering the perspectives of his students. In a
sense, our caring relationship allowed us to engage in activities deemed valuable for
social studies education. I also learned that self-study methodology served as a vehi-
cle for me to articulate these ideas along with certain limitations of my pedagogy
of care.
M. Trout (B)
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 4338 10th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55407, USA
e-mail: mille366@umn.edu
1The research that I describe in this chapter comes from a larger study on my practice supervising
10 social studies student teachers enrolled in the University of Minnesota’s post-baccalaureate
teacher preparation program.
119 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_8, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

120 M. Trout
Supervising Student Teachers, Building Professional
Relationships
Many teacher candidates and practicing teachers identify the student teaching
portion of their teacher education programs as a critical piece in their professional
development (Bullough, 2008; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Olmstead, 2007). The
student teaching experience does indeed stimulate positive changes in the beliefs of
some beginning teachers regarding learning, teaching, and content (Clift & Brady,
2005). However, “mislearning” (Feimen-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987) also occurs
with the effect of countering the aims of the teacher preparation program. In their
literature review, Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) provide further support
about the impact of student teaching experiences. They report that student teach-
ers’ beliefs can and do change as a result of the student teaching experience, but
not always in the ways the teacher education programs intend. One reason for this
might be the tension that Wideen et al. (1998) found between the expectations of the
teacher educators and those of the student teachers in their programs. They charac-
terize the opposing views as a “change-agenda” (p. 156) that teacher educators tend
to present in their coursework and a survival-agenda that student teachers tend to
express during their field placements.
University supervisors are regular members in the support system for student
teachers in the United States and beyond. One important service university supervi-
sors can provide is to facilitate relationships between student teachers, cooperating
teachers, and university teacher educators (Zimpher, deV oss, & Nott, 1980). In
their collaborative self-study, Montecinos, Cnudde, Ow, Solis, Suzuki, and Riveros
(2002) describe student teaching supervision as “a multidimensional task. It requires
providing technical advice, evaluation, and emotional support to the student teacher”
(p. 792). Yet the system may not always encourage the types of supportive relation-
ships student teachers and supervisors expect. Borko and Mayfield (1995) found
in their case study that both university supervisors and student teachers expressed
frustrations about the types of relationships they developed with each other and that
the limited amount of time they spent together was a constricting factor in their
professional relationships.
Personal traits of supervisors, however, can influence the quality of supervisor–
student teacher relationships. Caires and Almeida (2007) found that supervisor
attributes, such as “accessibility, good sense …attentiveness and flexibility” (p. 522)
contributed to what student teachers identified as the most positive aspect of
the supervision experience. Furthermore, supervisor–student teacher relationships
can encourage student teacher learning. Talvitie, Peltokallio, and Mannisto (2000)
found in their analysis of 16 student teachers’ journals that “a good relationship
with the [supervisors] gave [student teachers] the courage to experiment with new
pedagogical solutions” (p. 83).
The literature suggests that the quality of relationships between student teach-
ers and their supervisors can play a part in the kinds of learning experiences
student teachers have. Research on how such relationships develop, however, is
limited. Furthermore, the literature is scant on supervision in social studies teacher

8 Social Skills in Action 121
education. An exception is the collaborative self-study by Ritter, Powell, and
Hawley (2007) in which they explore their developing practices as student teach-
ing supervisors and their attempts to impact student teacher learning. This chapter
narrows the focus within the context of social studies education. It looks specifically
at a pedagogy of supervision that aims to cultivate a caring relationship between a
supervisor and her student teacher to benefit his growth as a beginning professional.
Understanding the Lens of Ethical Care
The theoretical construct of ethical care, as explored by Noddings (1986, 2002,
2003), framed the approach I took as a supervisor. Noddings (2003) offers a descrip-
tive account of when a teacher, the one-caring , enters into a caring relationship with
a student, the cared-for . According to Noddings (2003), caring teachers become
engrossed in their students’ ideas, they experience motivational displacement, and
they commit themselves to promoting their students’ well-being. To complete the
caring cycle, a student reciprocates by feeling and responding as though his or her
teacher does indeed care. In addition, Noddings (2003) also describes the actions
thatone-caring teachers take to promote their students’ abilities to care ethically for
others. Teachers model care, engage in dialogue with their students, create oppor-
tunities for students to practice care, and confirm their students’ desire to actualize
their ethical potentials.
The philosophical treatise on the ethic of care (Noddings, 2003) helped to shift
the conversation in educational scholarship about morality from using universal
truths to dictate behavior to looking at the interplay between people as an arena
for moral considerations. Noddings (2002) saw moral behavior as dependent upon
the context and relationships in which one engages rather than according to prin-
ciples devoid of context. Noddings (2002) did not divorce herself completely from
universals, however. Her argument rests upon one fundamental belief: all human
beings wish to be cared for or “to be in positive relation with at least one other
human being” (Noddings, 2002, p. 21). Finally, the ethic arises out of the difference
between what Noddings (2003) describes as natural and ethical care:
Ethical caring, the relation in which we do meet the other morally will be described as
arising out of natural caring—that relation in which we respond as one-caring out of love or
natural inclination. The relation of natural caring will be identified as the human condition
that we, consciously or unconsciously, perceive as “good.” (pp. 4–5)
In other words, ethical care occurs when we attempt to develop caring relationships
with people we may not love or care for out of natural inclination. As a supervisor
I entered into relationships with complete strangers; I had never met the student
teachers before we began our work together.
In this chapter I share the story of my attempts at relationship building with
one student teacher in particular, for whom I use the pseudonym, Derrick. I look
through the lens of ethical care theory, as described by Noddings (2003), to explore
the relationship that developed between Derrick and me while I attempted to help
him learn about teaching and his practice. My past experiences as a social studies

122 M. Trout
educator also influenced my work as his supervisor. In the next section I discuss
some insights about what the reflective process of self-study unveiled for me about
the discipline-specific ideals that guided my practice.
Pitching a Tent in the Social Skills Camp
Teaching social studies involves social development. At least that was the premise
that guided my pedagogy when I taught high school social studies. Since that time
I have become more acquainted with the fact that experts differ about the degree to
which social skills should pervade the social studies curriculum in the United States.
A long-standing academic conversation about the nature of social studies education
has existed since its inception in the 1920s (Adler, 2008; Hertzberg, 1981; Watras,
2002). Some argue that discrete social sciences, most notably history (Gagnon,
1996; Ravitch & Finn, 1987), constitute what children should learn from the social
studies curriculum in the nation’s public schools. According to this line of reason-
ing, the subject matter of the various social sciences matters more than particular
skills for using the content. Other voices in the discussion argue that the social stud-
ies, as an interdisciplinary endeavor, should provide a “social education” that places
skill development for living as competent and involved citizens at the core of the
social studies curriculum (Dewey, 1916; NCSS, 1994; Parker, 1996).
Generally I dislike taking sides. However, looking back over the decade I spent in
the classroom and the half decade I have spent as a doctoral student in social stud-
ies education, I realize that I pitched my tent unmistakably in the camp in which
an essential piece is developing students’ social skills. As a social studies teacher
I wanted students to practice behaviors that enabled them to learn together in pos-
itive ways. Listening to each other, asking each other questions, identifying what
they knew and did not know about a topic, and solving problems in groups became
central to my teaching. Knight Abowitz and Harnish (2006) would describe my
approach as belonging to a Liberal Citizenship Discourse that underscores a need
for students to possess the skills for participating in and protecting the democratic
political system in which they live.
The process of self-study caused me to dissect my practice through system-
atic documentation, analysis, and interpretation (Dinkelman, 2003; Hamilton &
Pinnegar, 1998). From this introspective glance, I realized that the underpinnings
of my teaching philosophy carried over into my research interests and my practice
as a teacher educator. I still envision social studies as a discipline through which
students learn about and practice skills for democratic living and my conception
of social studies education still relies on the premise that social development is
an essential part of the curriculum. In keeping with this ideal, the self-study from
which this chapter draws upon provided the means through which I was able to
more fully understand the social skills that ethical care (Noddings, 1986, 2002,
2003) highlighted in my practice as a teacher educator. I learned that caring eth-
ically prompted me to try to understand Derrick’s viewpoints while collaborating
with him. In essence, the process of self-study shed light on the kinds of skills in my
practice that I would like social studies student teachers to incorporate into theirs.

8 Social Skills in Action 123
Laying Out the Study
The Context
The University of Minnesota’s post-baccalaureate teacher licensing program is what
Kennedy (1998) would classify as having a “reform orientation” to teacher prepa-
ration rather than a “management orientation” because it serves to address the
complexities inherent in learning, teaching, and the subject matter. In particular the
social studies teacher education program underscores the development of its gradu-
ates’ authentic instruction and assessment practices (Newmann, Secada, & Wehlage,
1995).
The year I collected data there were roughly 30 students in the social studies
education cohort. In the fall semester the students participated in a practicum in
which they spent 6 weeks in middle or high school social studies classrooms and
taught for four of those weeks. The capstone requirement was their student teaching
assignment during the spring semester, in which the students spent 10 weeks in
social studies classrooms full time and planned and taught for at least six of those
weeks. It was during this time that I met and worked with Derrick.
Four white, middle class female doctoral students, of which I was one, served as
student teaching supervisors for the social studies cohort. A social studies profes-
sor in the Curriculum and Instruction Department supervised the doctoral students.
The responsibilities for supervising student teachers during their capstone experi-
ence involved reading, commenting on, and evaluating student teacher lesson plans
weekly and student teaching journals biweekly; observing student teachers teach
at least three times; meeting with student teachers once in the beginning of the
semester and thereafter following each observation to discuss their progress; and
communicating program expectations to both the student teachers and cooperating
teachers. Final assessments included checklists of student teacher dispositions and
letters of recommendations.
Research Goals
My intention for the study was to gain a better understanding of how ethical care
(Noddings, 2003) might influence my work as a supervisor of social studies student
teachers. I was not a teacher in the usual sense of the word, but I did consider
myself an educator: I had to assess the student teachers’ abilities and provide them
with feedback that would help them learn. Additionally I had taught a variety of
middle school and high school social studies classes and had taught courses in the
teacher preparation program at the University. Thus, when I met Derrick and the
other student teachers, I approached them with the intention of caring for them as my
students, and wanting to get to know them so that I could promote their development
as beginning social studies teachers.
The following research questions helped me explore the process of caring for
student teaching supervisees: How do I engage in a pedagogy of care with social

124 M. Trout
studies student teachers? How do I use pedagogical relationships to engage the stu-
dent teachers in learning about a pedagogy of care? What images of ethical care do
I see mirrored in my student teachers? What are the implications of a pedagogy of
care for supervising social studies student teachers?
Methodology
Why Self-Study?
Although self-study has been a “relatively underused” (Johnston, 2006, p. 57)
methodology in social studies research, it suited my purposes well. Self-study, as
described by Dinkelman (2003), Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998), and LaBoskey
(2004), provided a framework for me to document the ways I interacted with
Derrick, the thoughts I had during the interactions and throughout the relationship,
the challenges I faced, the changes that occurred in me throughout the process, and
finally, Derrick’s perception of how our relationship affected him and his practice.
Overall, the methodology aided me in the quest Adler (2008) describes as “devel-
oping a deeper understanding of the practices of teacher education by making the
tacit theories of teacher education practitioners public and explicit and by sub-
jecting those beliefs and practices to careful study, data collection, and reflection”
(pp. 332–333).
Data Collection Methods
Data for the study came from a variety of sources including email correspondence
with Derrick, my comments on his lesson plans, notes that I took during teaching
observations, our recorded post-observation conversations, field notes documenting
what occurred after site visits, analytic journal entries throughout the time I served
as Derrick’s supervisor, and an exit interview after I finished my responsibilities as
his supervisor.
Analytic Processes
I borrowed from case study research methods to explore the data systematically. My
strategy for analysis arose from a theoretical proposition (Yin, 2003), that of ethi-
cal care (Noddings, 1986, 2002, 2003). In the beginning stages of analysis I used
Noddings’ (2003) descriptors of ethical care as a heuristic to explore my work with
Derrick. In my reflective journal entries I wrote about my experiences of caring
for him: my engrossment in his ideas, my commitment to his growth, my ability
todisplace my motivations with his, and examples of reciprocity . I also wrote in
my journals about ways that I taught him about care, how I modeled care, how
I entered into dialogue with him, how I gave him opportunities to practice care
for his students, and how I confirmed his best intentions. For example, journal
prompts asked me to contemplate the ways in which I tried to become engrossed

8 Social Skills in Action 125
in Derrick’s ideas, what the experience of becoming engrossed was like, difficul-
ties/rewards of engrossment, and the impact of engrossment on my pedagogical
choices as Derrick’s supervisor.
Continuing the analysis I looked at the comments I made on Derrick’s lesson
plans and on his journal entries. I reread my field notes. I also listened to and tran-
scribed the post-observation debriefing conversations and the exit interview. I used
meaning categorization (Kvale, 1996) as a technique to classify the data accord-
ing to Noddings’ (2003) terminology and to the research questions that shaped the
study. I used broad-brush (Bazeley, 2007) coding strategies to identify subcate-
gories. Additionally, I used time-series analysis (Yin, 2003) to organize the data
into chronologies.
Cultivating Care
Ethical care is an ontological approach I assumed in my work with Derrick. At
the forefront of my mind in the beginning stages of our relationship was learning
about him and helping him achieve the goals to which he was striving. Care theory
involves confirmation of one’s actions in the sense that I would give Derrick the ben-
efit of the doubt if he veered off-course from his goals. Noddings (2003) describes
the process further: “She meets him as he is and finds something admirable and,
as a result, he may find the strength to become even more admirable. He is con-
firmed” (p. 179). In the following section I chart the pedagogical decisions I made
as I tried to learn about Derrick’s aspirations, to help him work toward his goals for
professional development.
Anticipated Steps
To introduce myself I sent a letter via email in the middle of January to Derrick.
I introduced myself, listed five items that described the services I would provide
as his supervisor, and listed four responsibilities I would expect him to fulfill. The
second sentence of the letter introduced a foundational piece for me: “I look forward
to helping you reach your goals” (Introductory letter, January 15). In the list of my
expectations for Derrick and the other student teachers, the first item was a directive
about identifying their professional goals for the student teaching assignment.
Your Responsibilities
1. Formulate your goals for the student teaching experience. Consider what you
want to learn from the experience and how that will help you develop as an
educator. (When we meet, I will ask you about the particular goals you are work-
ing toward, so that I can adjust my work to suit your needs). (Introductory letter,
January 15)

126 M. Trout
The rest of my expectations for them pertained to logistical matters such as
site observations, writing and turning in lesson plans, and a reminder to present
themselves as professionals at all times. I closed the note with “Once again, I look
forward to working with you this semester” (Introductory letter, January, 15).
One week later I met Derrick in person. It was the only occasion when I joined the
student teaching seminar class, and it was the only time I met all of my supervisees
in one group. We had 30 min to meet for brief introductions and to share our goals:
I told them …that I feel strongly about building relationships as a way to enhance learning,
so I wanted us to tell a bit about ourselves and our goals for the time together …Ia l s ow a n t
to serve as a resource and someone who gives them opportunities to engage in conversations
about their knowledge as professionals. (Field notes, January 22)
After the meeting I thought about Derrick’s goals and appreciated his honesty. He
did not talk about pedagogical strategies; rather he spoke about himself as a learner.
He said that he tends “to get comfortable and go with the same thing every day”
(Notes from meeting, January 22). Derrick continued that he wanted to challenge
himself to take more risks during his student teaching experience.
Unanticipated Steps
Derrick and I had no contact for nearly 3 weeks, even though I had received two
sets or more of weekly lesson plans from the other student teachers. I sent him
an email: “Hi Derrick, How are you? I just wanted to find out how your student
teaching schedule is shaping up. Are you in the school yet? If so, when do you
expect to begin teaching?” (Email correspondence, February 9). He responded the
next day to tell me that he would begin teaching the following week and that I could
expect to see his lesson plans in 2 days, by the weekly due date. Unfortunately, I did
not receive them until the day after he began teaching. In the meantime, I received
Derrick’s first set of journal entries, in which he described his displeasure for the
learning environment of the classroom and the urban high school where he was. My
feedback came 2 days after receiving the first set of lessons:
Based on your journal entries, I am concerned about you, your placement, and the support
that you may or may not be receiving at the school. May I visit you early next week? I did
not receive your lessons yesterday [for the upcoming week], but when I do, let’s zero in on
a day and time for me to come. (Email correspondence, February, 19)
Three days later Derrick responded:
Here is my lesson plan for Monday. …Is there anyway we could meet on Wednesday after-
noon. I would prefer to meet outside of the school as it would be more comfortable to
discuss my frustrations.
I don’t want you to think I am having a horrible time. It is just not a situation I ever envi-
sioned in a school setting and the classroom is run in a way that does not match my idea of
what the most conducive learning environment would consist of.
I truly appreciate your concern and look forward to speaking with you this week. (Email
correspondence, February 22)

8 Social Skills in Action 127
Derrick and I set up a meeting for the following week. Unfortunately, the stress over
his placement apparently affected his health. The day before our meeting I received
an email:
Just arrived at school, however I’m feeling under the weather and throwing up this morning
before I left. Just curious if I’m not feeling any better if there is something I need to do to
leave at lunch? Is that acceptable? (Email correspondence, February 24)
I responded by writing that he didn’t have to wait until lunch to go home, to talk
with his cooperating teacher about his lesson plans and to get some rest. Derrick
went home. He made it to school the next day and met me at a coffee shop later that
afternoon.
Entering the coffee shop I did not recognize Derrick because we had met in
person only once before. I tried to put myself at ease by focusing on what Derrick
said. I wrote in my field notes: “He talked about his frustrations and the fact that his
experiences have impacted his life emotionally in ways that he has not let happen
before” (February 25). The most pressing cause was what he perceived to be an
attitude among the students, and possibly the cooperating teacher that education
was not a priority for them. Later that day I thought to myself: “It is dawning on me
now that this was part of the reason he did not turn in a complete set of lessons for
this week” (Field notes, February 25). Meeting with Derrick gave me an opportunity
to learn about a context within which the teacher preparation program expected him
to learn about teaching. It also afforded me a chance to learn more about him so
that I could try to foster his development as a beginning teacher. My commitment to
Derrick caused me to add this extra meeting; my engrossment helped me listen to
what he said; confirming him kept me from judging his teaching disposition at this
early stage in our relationship.
When Derrick finished describing his concerns “I summarized his frustrations to
make sure I followed him” (Field notes, February 25). Derrick said something to the
effect that if he could, he would lead discussions all the time as a teacher. That was
my cue. Later that night I described my response:
I…found myself moving into problem solving mode. For some reason I wonder if he did
not want/need that, but I wanted to do some problem-solving, to work with him to practice
designing a hook in the beginning of a lesson that would give students an opportunity to
think of the lesson in terms of their own lives. (Field notes, February 25)
Derrick spoke of not being able to lead discussions in his current placement because
the students did not want to talk. I steered the conversation in a way that reinforced a
suggestion I had made on his first lesson plan about the powers of the United States
Congress from the previous week:
I wonder if it would help if you were to ask some opening questions of the class, to help
them dig into their own experiences with the government, or with making “rules,” or with
Congress? If you decide to do this, I would take time to think about the questions you might
ask. Many teachers make the mistake of assuming that good questions are easy to think of.
Thinking of questions that really help students think about what they already know and link
to the lesson at hand takes practice. (Lesson plan comments, February 19)

128 M. Trout
Although my comments in the preceding field note entry demonstrate my uncer-
tainty about whether or not my pedagogical choice to problem solve with Derrick
was something he wanted to do, I followed my instincts to use the situation
to help him gain experience writing questions. Together we brainstormed possi-
ble questions for past and future lessons in the unit he was teaching. We talked
about ways to invite participation and thought about what life experiences the
students might draw upon to consider the subject matter. I emphasized the point
that when students spoke in class they could provide valuable information for
Derrick about their lives, what they knew, and what they were learning. Looking
back on this conversation I wonder if I embodied ethical care. In other words,
did I displace my motivations with his? I knew that he wanted more students to
talk in class but did he really want to practice writing questions with me in that
moment?
My focus for the meeting at the coffee shop turned out to be twofold. First, I was
concerned about Derrick and wanted to learn more about his placement to decide
if there was something I should do as a representative of the University. Second
of all, I wanted to help him with a specific skill that I had noted from reading his
lesson plans and hearing about his desire to lead discussions. Overall I was com-
mitted to learning more about Derrick and his goals for student teaching. What we
talked about that day resurfaced frequently during the rest of our work together.
The interplay between his comfort level in the classroom and the amount of student
involvement in conversations in some ways reflected the classroom set-up where he
taught.
Interacting Care
Learning about Derrick’s goals was an important first part of our relationship. When
I saw him teach I made different pedagogical choices, but still tried to use ethical
care as a guide. I attended closely to his teaching, took copious notes on what hap-
pened during the class sessions, and met with him for an hour to debrief each time.
During the meetings and on his lesson plans I gave him options to consider, but did
not dictate what he should do. My attempts to become engrossed with his lessons
and his ideas, my commitment to him as a beginning teacher, my confirmation of his
strengths, and the degree to which I was able to displace my motivations shaped the
direction of our conversations. I brought ideas with me as well about what effective
social studies teaching looks like and the purpose to which it serves. Social learning
skills such as helping students engage with each other and with the content along
the lines of constructivist learning theory influenced the advice I gave. My approach
to supervision combined ethical care and a specific interpretation of the social stud-
ies curriculum. Within this context, the data suggest that Derrick and I engaged
in authentic social studies practices as we discussed his professional choices and
growth.

8 Social Skills in Action 129
Care as Perspective Taking: Understanding a Divided Classroom
When I entered the classroom for the first time where Derrick was placed, both he
and the cooperating teacher suggested that I observe from the teacher’s desk in the
front corner. The student desks were in five long rows stretching from front to back.
I told them that I wanted to have a different vantage point from Derrick, so that I
could gather information from where the students were seated. I chose a desk in the
back of the room. Derrick sat down at the front desk off to the corner while students
entered. When class began I realized that 7 of the 19 students were sitting in the
back rows, separated by up to three empty seats between them and the students in
the front rows. I was so startled that I made a map of where students sat in the room.
Compounding the physical segregation was the fact that the students in the back
rows were all Hmong immigrants and those in the front rows were not. I raised the
issue within minutes of starting our debriefing session.
I recommended making the back rows off-limits to students simply as a way
to bring the students closer together. Derrick talked about his ideal seating design,
which would be in a “U” shape, but that right now he was a student teacher in
someone else’s room. We spent the next 10 min discussing various ways to arrange
desks to prompt student participation, stemming from our conversation the week
before. I urged him to take some time after school to move the desks around and to
find out what might work in the long physical space. On three other occasions during
the conversation I mentioned the segregated seating arrangement, twice regarding
student responses that Derrick had not heard because the students sat so far from
him, and once to restate how the desk arrangement countered his aim of wanting
students to converse more in class.
When I left that day I hoped that Derrick would make adjustments to the way
students were sitting in the room. Only later would I begin to think about how much
this segregation represented Derrick’s discomfort in his placement as well as the
discomfort students may have felt when they entered the class. Indeed, the process
of self-study prompted me to explore this idea as I reviewed the data. During the
exit interview Derrick described for me his thoughts:
I felt the situation itself for me was a risk. Um, just my life experience didn’t afford me the
opportunity to work with this population up until that point. And, I think that in itself was
risky for me, which made it harder to take pedagogical risks. (Exit interview, May 26)
On the day of the first observation I was not surprised about the lack of student
involvement. My snapshot assessment targeted the physical segregation in the room
and Derrick’s questioning techniques as the culprits. Upon further reflection I cringe
at my simplistic suggestion to close the physical space between the immigrant and
non-immigrant students. I also think about how much of my work in the beginning
stages of student teaching supervision was spent on relationship building, perhaps
at the expense of exploring more thoroughly with Derrick the complexities involved
in my pedagogical suggestion to remove the empty seats between the two distinct
groups of students.

130 M. Trout
By the end of Derrick’s student teaching term he never did try any of the physical
arrangements we bantered around during my first site visit. Becoming engrossed in
Derrick’s rationale for accepting the seating arrangement constituted much of my
efforts during the next two observation debriefings. Part of me wanted to require him
to incorporate some of the changes we discussed. However, attempting to displace
my motivations to understand more fully Derrick’s thoughts pulled me back from
taking the dictatorial stance. Listening to Derrick’s viewpoint helped me understand
the pressures he felt as a student teacher working under the direction of a veteran
teacher. Derrick wondered about how his cooperating teacher would respond if he
moved the desks out of rows: “Isn’t that saying that he’s not doing his job? You
know what I mean? I try to limit that as much as possible” (Observation debriefing,
March 16). Derrick continued to describe his struggle: “Is it my right to make that
decision in someone else’s classroom? And that’s what’s been the hardest thing for
me to grapple with in general” (March 16). In reference to his sensitivity to his
cooperating teacher, I confirmed who Derrick was as a person. I commented that
this trait could lend itself to developing positive relations with future colleagues. I
did not mention the potential for adverse relationships because of his unwillingness
to challenge a seeming perpetuation of social inequity. Perhaps this was another
unintended cost of caring. In my deliberate actions to find something positive about
Derrick’s choice to maintain the status quo, did I forfeit an opportunity to speak on
behalf of his current and future students?
Looking back on the situation I am still uncomfortable about the fact that the seat-
ing chart remained a rather obvious representation of the students’ differing social
statuses in the classroom. I would have preferred to see Derrick take a stand that
would have reinforced the purposes that I envision for the social studies curriculum.
I even offered words he could use with students:
“I don’t want those divisions to come into the classroom” …I think that’s a reason-
able conversation you could have with students. “Our school, there’s a history of tension
between different groups. My goal for this class—a social studies class …is to get practice
communicating with each other.” (Observation debriefing, March 30)
My care for Derrick felt splintered. I chose to respect his decisions, but I also felt
a need to speak to a moral purpose of social studies education. Reviewing the data
makes me wish I had stressed the point further, to give him more practice assuming a
different “moral stance” (Barton & Levstik, 2004) from which to view the situation.
At the time, however, I felt like I was being repetitive and risked losing Derrick’s
trust. Learning about Derrick’s point of view, though, did make it easier to accept
the limitations of my role. It also enabled me to take into account his perspective
while considering my next pedagogical moves.
Care as Collaboration: Prompting Student Engagement
Derrick’s desire to lead discussions continued to shape my pedagogical choices as
his supervisor. From the beginning I noted room for improvement in his ability to
invite students to participate. In the first observation debriefing I commented that he

8 Social Skills in Action 131
had asked one open-ended question and the rest had been rhetorical. I tied this into
my summary notes of the lesson:
Think of different ways to ask students to demonstrate they grasp the material, such as
have them explain their thoughts more, have them review the ideas out loud or on paper,
have them write comments in which they respond to an open-ended question related to the
content. (Observation notes, March 5)
We worked collaboratively for 9 min on writing questions that he could ask to
prompt students to think about the material at hand while connecting it to their
own experiences:
D: That’s where I feel like I struggle.
M: How to do that? What are the questions to ask?
D: Yeah.
I threw out a sample question:
M: If you were a Supreme Court Justice, what would be your favorite of these
three things to do [choosing cases, hearing cases, making judgments]?
D: What criteria would you use to decide or something of that nature?
M: Yeah.
D: Whether or not you’re going to hear the case? (Debriefing, March 5)
Documenting the lesson closely gave us starting points from which we collabo-
rated on ways to phrase questions. My engrossment andcommitment facilitated this
process. I had six pages of hand written notes in which I tried to follow as much
of the class as I could. I gave Derrick copies of the notes to keep. Later he would
tell me: “You were very detailed, and you didn’t improvise, you gave very help-
ful advice and provided me with the notes that you took …I just thought that was
extremely beneficial (Exit interview, May 26).”
Derrick and I would practice more in my next two visits. Collaborating with him
in this way affected his learning experience:
I think the questioning was kind of …our big task to tackle …And, I think you really were
able to help me in the sense that you sat down with me and we actually developed actual
questions rather than, “well, let’s take this approach and you develop the questions.” You
know, there was actual concrete material that we were able to produce ….Seeing what ques-
tions would actually look like and how they can be stated I think is a lot more beneficial for
me…at least for me it worked better being able to throw ideas off someone else and come
up with a concrete plan …I like that feedback. (Exit interview, May 26)
In the exit interview I asked him why he referred to the work on how to ask open-
ended questions as “our” task. His response describes motivational displacement :
I think it’s because you were the one person that helped me with it and you continued to go
back to it, three meetings and four meetings in. Um, so, it was, I guess it was my task that
you were willing to also accept as yours. (Exit interview, May 26)

132 M. Trout
Collaborating with Derrick became a way to confirm his intentions as a beginning
teacher. It also allowed us an opportunity to practice skills important for social
engagement. I modeled collaboration, but also engaged Derrick in collaborative
work. He said in the exit interview: “When we were brainstorming, we were also
keeping in mind the diversity of the student population. We were, and I mean me
and you, we were trying to take into account what their life experiences may have
been.” (Exit interview, May 26). Our social interactions encouraged us to listen
to each other, to ask each other questions, and for Derrick to clarify what he did
not know about the technique of asking open-ended questions. In short, we were
enacting part of the social studies curriculum. The data suggest, then, that Derrick
gained experience in working collaboratively and thinking analytically about how
his practice might build upon the perspectives of his students.
A Caring Cycle
The process of self-study shed light on the symbiotic relationship between my care
for Derrick, his development as a teacher, and the reactions of his students. One
topic in particular illustrates an area of growth for Derrick that relates back to his
comfort level in the classroom and his ability to learn from his students’ responses.
During my first site visit we briefly discussed where Derrick had stood when stu-
dents entered the classroom. I raised the issue during our debriefing session: “Did
you ever talk in your program about greeting students at the door? …It struck me
that you were seated at the front” (Debriefing, March 5). Derrick mentioned that it
was not in the culture of the school for teachers to stand by the door. I pleaded to his
moral calling: “You could be that teacher. Think of what it’s like for the students.”
We did not dwell on the topic for long. In fact, we moved on to other comments in
my notes within a minute. What surprised me about this, however, is the fact that
Derrick heeded my advice and he did so, reportedly because he experienced my
care.
He described in his exit interview the two major adjustments he made in his
teaching due to our work together. He recounted the brief suggestion after my first
observation as a pivotal moment for him:
D: So, I think other than the questioning, the big thing was just to care for
students. And, I was able to get greater, I think, by knowing that there was
someone caring for me.
M: Yeah. I’m curious about how that might work.
D: I just, it might be just because when I was able to say “hello, how are you
doing?” my classes would go a lot more smoothly.
M: They did?
D: Yeah. So, I don’t know. But, maybe you were modeling in that sense in
showing that you care for me. And, I was like, “this is what I need to do for
my students.” …But, it didn’t work out until you said “you should get out

8 Social Skills in Action 133
of your chair” …Because I think you were the one that kind of put it in the
forefront for me.
M: Put what at the forefront?
D: Saying, you know, “talk to your students as they come into the classroom.
Say hello to them, get out of the chair, the desk, that separation.” And, it
carries a lot more weight when you are showing care to me.
M: Why? Or how?
D: Because that is how I operate. I think if you would tell me to do something
and you didn’t do it in return for me, it wouldn’t carry much weight. (Exit
interview, May 26)
My observation notes lend support to Derrick’s perception of his increased inter-
actions with students. In particular, the Hmong students in the back of the room
participated more over the course of my observations. During my second visit
Derrick acknowledged three comments made by Hmong students, which repre-
sented 6% of all student comments in the class and during my last visit Derrick
welcomed 27 comments offered by Hmong students into the class-wide discourse,
representing 44% of all student participation. Similarly, my notes of where students
sat showed a smaller physical separation between the Hmong students and the oth-
ers in the class. On my last site visit, Hmong students ventured into the third and
fourth rows whereas on my first two visits one sat in the fifth row and the rest sat in
the sixth and seventh rows.
One conversation between Derrick and me illustrates his increasing comfort level
and his ability to involve more students in class conversations. During the sec-
ond debriefing we spent roughly 10 min celebrating two class-wide discussions he
had facilitated earlier in the week. Derrick told me how he had asked open-ended
questions and that students had shared their perspectives and tapped into their own
experiences while talking about two controversial social issues: racial profiling and
comparing student test scores across districts. Derrick continued by commenting
on his limited experiences with diversity, having grown up in a white, middle class
family and in a state with a small minority population. He said that he was able to
learn about the students’ lives and cultures during these two conversations. Derrick
thought about the value of hearing his students’ thoughts:
D: We talked so much about, in the [University] program, this gender balance
[pause] multiple viewpoints [pause] and bringing in multiple viewpoints.
And that is something I really struggle with is bringing in multiple view-
points.
M: Okay. And a lot of people do.
D: It’s because, I think I mentioned it in my journal, this idea of coming from
a population that’s not very diverse, where I didn’t think of all this. So
it’s challenging for me to think about this information when presenting this
information. But it helps a lot when students are willing to …
M: Yeah, edify you.

134 M. Trout
D: Yeah, that’s exactly right. It’s eye opening to me to hear some of the stories.
(Debriefing, March 16)
Derrick’s experience with leading discussions on the controversial topics cre-
ated opportunities for him to hear the perspectives of his students, who came from
culturally and economically different backgrounds from his own. This moment is
important because not only did Derrick gain insight into his students’ lives, he also
began to understand more clearly what his professors had meant about the value
of bringing multiple perspectives into the social studies curriculum. Derrick experi-
enced first hand how listening to the perspectives of others could enhance his own
learning.
Discussion
Caring for Derrick ethically meant that I tried to become engrossed in his ideas,
follow his motivations, and commit myself to his development. It also meant that I
tried to model care, engage in dialogue with Derrick, create opportunities for him to
practice care, and confirm his best self according to his ideals. Caring ethically man-
ifested itself when I tried to understand his perspective on why he did not force the
students to mix themselves in the seating arrangement and when we worked collab-
oratively on phrasing questions to prompt more student engagement in substantive
conversations.
Although I felt deeply disappointed about the continued segregation that occurred
in the classroom, the data suggest that Derrick had experiences in which he learned
from his students and considered the process a valuable part of his growth as a begin-
ning teacher. I would offer that both attributes reveal aspects of his growing care for
students. In the beginning of our relationship Derrick blamed students for the fact
that they did not participate in class conversations. However, when he led the infor-
mal discussions about racial profiling and student test scores, Derrick demonstrated
a willingness to value the personal stories of his students. The fact that he invited stu-
dents’ viewpoints into the dialogue and saw them as valid, I would argue, puts him
in a better place to expect his students to do the same. Derrick’s self-described dis-
comfort in his student teaching placement created challenges for him as a beginning
teacher. The framework of ethical care helped me cultivate a safe environment for
Derrick to talk about and address the difficulties he faced, especially in the absence
of a highly engaged cooperating teacher.
Implications
Our teacher education program expected Derrick to do such things as teach students
to (1) consider multiple viewpoints and (2) collaborate with others, two skills among
many the social studies community identifies as important. One implication of this

8 Social Skills in Action 135
study is that approaching Derrick from a stance of ethical care facilitated his under-
standing of and ability to enact these two skills, even in a setting that challenged
him greatly. Student teachers often revert to more teacher-centered classroom activ-
ities when they are intimidated by students or simply feel uncomfortable leading.
Providing caring support for Derrick aided him in his quest to tackle the risk of
the urban school setting and to engage in more active learning experiences for his
students. Thus, a pedagogy of care in student teaching supervision has the potential
to reinforce for student teacher understanding of certain social studies skills as they
occur in the field.
The Power of Self-Study for My Practice
This research suggests that self-study methodology has something to offer social
studies education. Systematically documenting and analyzing the data and writing
this case shed new light on my practice as a social studies student teaching supervi-
sor. For one, I was not wholly cognizant of the degree to which my philosophy as
a former social studies teacher impacted my work as Derrick’s supervisor. In addi-
tion, I did not appreciate the extent to which caring ethically for Derrick meant that
my supervisory work was “learner-centered” in nature and that the implications of
using his views to inform my practice supported specific skills in the social stud-
ies curriculum. In particular, reviewing the debriefing recordings brought to life the
numerous examples of our collaborative efforts together. I simply had not realized
how much we practiced writing questions to invoke student participation.
The self-study process also helped me learn about some of the ways I executed
my responsibilities as a supervisor. For example, Derrick valued the detailed notes I
took during my site visits. Before the study I wrote the notes because my supervisor
had done so for me over 20 years ago and they fulfilled the program’s expectations.
My new appreciation sees the notes as a physical artifact of my care for Derrick
from which we could analyze his teaching practice. In addition, the study made me
aware of a tension I felt when I tried to understand Derrick’s motivations and ideas.
At times practicing ethical care restrained me and challenged my patience. Finally,
the study also made me wonder about how my care for Derrick may have blurred
my attention to larger issues like race, class, and equity. Armed with data from the
debriefing transcripts, I was able to contemplate the value of specific pedagogical
choices I made. Overall, self-study helped me understand how my pedagogy of care
reinforced my interpretation of social studies education, one in which developing
skills for living in a democracy matters.
References
Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.),
Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 329–351). New York: Routledge.
Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates.

136 M. Trout
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Borko, H., & Mayfield, V . (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor
in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (5), 501–518.
Bullough, R. V . (2008). Teaching and reconsidering the social foundations of education: A self-
study. Studying Teacher Education, 4 (1), 5–15.
Caires, S., & Almeida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: The
student teachers’ perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22 (4), 515–528.
Clift, R.T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-
Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The reports of the AERA panel on
research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Washington, DC: American Education Research
Association.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education . New York: The Macmillan Company.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting
reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 6–18.
Feimen-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 3 (4), 255–273.
Gagnon, P. (1996). History’s role in civic education: The precondition for political intelligence. In
W. C. Parker (Ed.), Educating the democratic mind (pp. 241–262). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514–535). New York: MacMillan.
Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1998). Conclusion: The value and promise of self-study. In M.
Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Developing competence through self-
study (pp. 235–246). London: Falmer.
Hertzberg, H. (1981). Social studies reform: 1880–1980 . Boulder, CO: Social Science Education
Consortium.
Johnston, M. (2006). The lamp and the mirror: Action research and self-studies in the social stud-
ies. In K. C. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in social studies education: Contemporary issues
and perspectives (pp. 57–83). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference? New
York: Teachers College Press.
Knight Abowitz, K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses on citizenship. Review of
Educational Research, 76 (4). 653–690.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing . Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J.
Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of
self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp.817–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Montecinos, C., Cnudde, V ., Ow, M., Solis, M. C., Suzuki, E., & Riveros, M. (2002). Relearning the
meaning and practice of student teaching supervision through collaborative self-study. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 18 , 781–793.
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence:
Curriculum standards for social studies . Retrieved July 21, 2008, from
http://www.socialstudies.org/standards/introduction .
Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and
assessment: Vision, standards and scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational
Research.
Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and research for teaching. Harvard
Educational Review, 56 (4), 496–510.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.),
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

8 Social Skills in Action 137
Olmstead, M. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of practicum supervision: One student teacher’s expe-
riences of powerful differences. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of
teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp.138–148). London: Routledge.
Parker, W. C. (Ed.). (1996). Educating the democratic mind . Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Ravitch, D., & Finn, C. E. Jr. (1987). What do our 17-year olds know? A report on the first national
assessment of history and literature .N e wY o r k :H a r p e r&R o w .
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D., & Hawley, T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative self-study
into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2 (3), 341–357.
Talvitie, U., Peltokallio, L., & Mannisto, P. (2000). Student teachers’ views about their relation-
ships with university supervisors, cooperating teachers and peer student teachers. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 44 (1), 79–88.
Watras, J. (2002). Debating the curriculum: Social studies or history, 1892–1937. The Social
Studies, 93 (4), 245–250.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of learning to teach: Making
the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68 , 130–178.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimpher, N. L., deV oss, G. G., & Nott, D. L. (1980). A closer look at university student teacher
supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 31( 4), 11–15.

Chapter 9
Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies
and Social Studies Teaching: Bridging Intent
and Action
Andy L. Hostetler
The survival of democracy in America requires, above all else,
launching of a bold and vigorous program of action. If
democracy is to continue to live, it must show signs of life; if it
is not to face the immediate prospect of senility and death, it
must go forward to new ventures and conquests. It cannot
preserve itself by standing still and clutching to its breast the
achievements of the past.
(Counts, 1939, p. 11)
Counts (1939) encouraged educators to sustain our democracy through engaging
in “new ventures” and the “launching of a bold and vigorous program of action”
(p. 11). As a graduate student and social studies teacher I have questioned, and
heard colleagues question, the relevance of education theory in the realities of class-
room practice. Many authors suggested that linking theory to practice could be done
through inquiry (Dewey, 1910; Marano, 1998; LaBoskey, 2004a; Russell, 2004).
Through engaging in self-study, I have seen the power and witnessed the promise
of self-study to connect these two aspects of my teaching and learning. As well
as this, I have seen the ways in which collaborative self-study helps you frame
and reframe (Schön, 1983; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998; Loughran & Northfield,
1998) experiences and bring out new themes and emerging lines of inquiry for
continued self-study, essentially leading to sustained professional development
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
This chapter provides an example of the power and promise of self-study as a
process, and way of thinking about social education, to improve social studies edu-
cators’ and teacher educators’ understanding of individual practice and, collectively,
social studies education. To show this, the chapter includes a description of the theo-
retical framework, methodology, context, findings, and discussion of a collaborative
self-study of my teaching practice as an example of self-study’s unique place in
social studies.
A.L. Hostetler (B)
Louisville High School, 413 S. Silver St., Louisville, OH 44641, USA
e-mail: alhostet@Kent.edu
139 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_9, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

140 A.L. Hostetler
Theoretical Framework
The Goal of Social Studies Education
According to Barton and Levstick (2004), a primary goal of education is “ …to pre-
pare students for citizenship in a democracy” (p. 28). The National Council for the
Social Studies (NCSS) “ …believes that the core mission of social studies education
is to help students develop the knowledge, skills, and values that will enable them to
become effective citizens” (NCSS, 2001). The role of social studies, as in education
is to prepare students to be effective citizens in a democracy by engaging them in
experiences that will develop the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for such a
role.
This goal of social education is at the center of public education. But what is
necessary to prepare students for democratic living? According to NCSS (2001),
preparation for effective citizenship includes
•embracing and living democratic values;
•accepting responsibility for self, family, and community;
•developing knowledge of documents, institutions, processes, people, history, and
traditions that define and shape society;
•developing awareness of local, national, and global issues and events;
•seeking information from reliable sources, develop informed opinions and
creative solutions;
•asking meaningful questions and analyzing ideas;
•engaging in effective decision making and problem-solving in public and private
life; and
•participating in civic and community life.
All of this suggests that students should be learning to improve themselves,
their local community, and the national and global communities in which they
live through using knowledge and understanding about the world around them to
question, problem-solve, and engage in the processes and institutions that will lead
to a better democratic society. This is education for social change, which Dewey
(1937) claimed is a necessary function of education. In education, and particularly
in social studies, social change through preparing students to be effective citizens in
a democracy is the primary objective.
Individual and Social Change Through Inquiry
Social change will not happen without a change in individuals in society. Change in
individuals occurs when knowledge is acquired, not as a product or fact but knowl-
edge as a process (LaBoskey, 2004a) created locally (Cochran-Smith, 2003) and
personally constructed. This self-study occurs within a constructivist framework

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 141
(Crowe & Whitlock, 1999; Ritter, Powell, & Hawley, 2007). In this case the con-
struction of knowledge and understanding occurs actively through a process of
framing and reframing (Schön, 1983) experiences and the contexts in which these
experiences transpire. In this conception of knowledge construction, teachers must
first be learners and one way to facilitate this coming to understanding is through
reflection (Crowe & Whitlock, 1999).
According to Dewey (1910) reflective thinking involves the active and persistent
interrogation of ideas and beliefs. Since beliefs lead to action (Korthegen, 2004) it
makes sense that teaching for social change requires a deep and focused reflection
on practice through examining one’s beliefs and the connection of those beliefs to
practice. Myers (2002) suggested that change starts with the self and then pushes
out. This is an excellent example of how to model social change beginning with
self, through inquiry (Marano, 1998), then pushing to make it public, and working
collaboratively with others to encourage communal and societal change.
Inquiry and Social Change
The way in which social change can occur through individual inquiry is suggested
by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) in their conception of “inquiry as stance.”
Adopting inquiry as a stance, or as a way of approaching teaching and learning,
means the model of the expert transmitting knowledge is “conspicuously absent”
from the classroom (Cochran-Smith, 2003) lending itself to a student-centered
constructivist orientation. This orientation helps to facilitate many of the impor-
tant aspects of effective citizenship outlined by NCSS, including allowing students
to engage in questioning, problem-solving, and decision making about the world
around them using the knowledge and content learned. These tasks must be student-
centered and cannot be taught by a teacher merely explaining what a “good”
decision or solution would be to a given problem. Otherwise, social studies stu-
dents would not be learning the skill of decision making. Rather, students would be
learning what the teacher considers to be a good decision.
From a phenomenological perspective the student-centered orientation is ideal.
Different people experience phenomena in educational settings in different ways
(Âkerland, 2008). Furthermore, in a student-centered inquiry-based classroom for
social change, where teaching and learning is centered on the goals of effective citi-
zenship for positively influencing society, it is necessary to embrace the uncertainty
and let go of more traditional teacher-centered classroom instruction. Authoritarian
control relies too heavily on teacher-centered routines, procedures, and discipline
restricting the social construction of knowledge. It removes the chance to empower
students as the creators of knowledge and understanding and limits the opportu-
nity for deliberation and inquiry learning that can occur in constructivist settings.
Essential to embracing this uncertainty is understanding that the teacher may not
have all of the answers and may not ask all of the questions that lead to the creation
of knowledge. This is a post-modern perspective (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998) that
is aligned with key theoretical points of an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith, 2003;

142 A.L. Hostetler
Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004) methodology referred to as self-study. LaBoskey
(2004a) outlined the key theoretical aspects of self-study as being post-modern,
feminist, and post-structural. From this perspective, knowledge is contextually and
culturally sensitive, with learning grounded in social constructivist learning theory
and with strong consideration of social justice (Tyson & Park, 2008), the voices of
the marginalized, in its processes and outcomes.
Conceptualization and Enactment of Self-Study Methodology
What is Self-Study?
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) described the dimensions and process of “inquiry
as stance” as consisting of democratic purposes with connections to knowledge,
practice, and community and consideration of goals that exemplify social justice
with implications for deepening local, linking locals, reinventing professionalism,
connecting practitioner inquiry, transforming agendas, and renegotiating research–
practice–policy relationships. Loughran (1999)proposed a conception of research
in education as a process of seeking answers that are important to teaching and
learning. He argued that research in teaching may occur in a variety of ways.
One methodology is self-study. Self-study as defined by Dinkelman (2003) is an
“…intentional and systematic inquiry into one’s own practice. Included in this
definition is inquiry conducted by individual teacher educators as well as groups
working collaboratively to understand problems of practice more deeply” (p. 8).
Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998) defined self-study as a “[f]ormalization of reframing”
(p. 1) and
The study of one’s self, one’s actions, one’s ideas, as well as the ‘not self’. …Self-study
also involves a thoughtful look at texts read, experiences had, people known, and ideas
considered. These are investigated for their connections with and relationships to practice
as a teacher educator. (p. 236)
The authors added the necessity of openness, collaboration, and reframing to
the self-study methodology. According to LaBoskey (2004a) “self-study is not the
same thing as reflective practice” (p. 825). Furthermore, self-study facilitates an
examination and reconstruction of self that is necessary in developing and contin-
uing to develop self-image as a teacher (pp. 828–830). Loughran and Northfield
(1998) concluded that self-study as a methodology “ …leads to genuine reframing
(Schön, 1983) of a situation so that learning and understanding through reflec-
tion might be enhanced” (p. 7). These definitions of self-study are vague and
broad conceptions of the endeavor we were asked to undertake in our collaborative
self-study.
At our first collaborative group meeting, self-study was introduced to us just
as ambiguously in relation to the work of Dewey (1910) on reflective thinking as
a process, and Schön’s (1983) work on reflective inquiry and reflection-in-action.
Alicia described self-study to our group as “ …problematizing and always learning

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 143
from experience and that, rather than sort of test through trial-and-error that there
is deliberateness to everything that you do and reflect on, that is how you learn”
(A. R. Crowe, Collaborative Group Meeting, December 15, 2008).
It gradually became clear that this ambiguity and variety of conceptions of self-
study is part of its theoretical foundation as a methodology. It is important to allow
for a variety of ways to conceptualize and engage in self-study. However, there are
some uniform characteristics of self-study, in that it is self-initiated and focused,
improvement aimed, interactive at one or more points during the process, conducted
through diverse methodologies of qualitative research, and validated through a pro-
cess based on trustworthiness (LaBoskey, 2004b). Russell (2004) added that making
the research public has its benefits in that the move from private to public leads
to additional layers of understanding through thinking about and articulating the
process and findings of the researcher’s experience.
Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998) identified a critique that others in the research
community have of self-study. These critics have argued that practical knowledge is
epistemologically implausible because educators doing practical inquiry do not have
evidence for what they know. Critics of self-study might suggest that inquiry-based
researchers have beliefs about what they observe and that these beliefs influence
the research findings, thus calling into question the legitimacy of self-study as a
research methodology. This is why collaborative groups of “critical friends” (Berry
& Crowe, 2006) and systematic qualitative data collection and analysis are essential
elements of reliable self-study and are described in sections of this chapter.
Collaborative Group Influence
Many authors identified collaboration as a beneficial, or even essential aspect of
reflective inquiry and self-study (Schön, 1983; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998; Marano,
1998; Tidwell, 2002; Dinkelman, 2003; LaBoskey, 2004a; Ritter et al., 2007). The
primary benefit of collaboration in self-study research is the reframing of experi-
ences (Schön, 1983; Loughran & Northfield, 1998; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998).
Although group members have a shared context in the collaborative aspect of the
research, the mutual construction of understanding of phenomena and experience
as they emerge in the study is essential (Dinkelman, 2003). Though the nature of
each learning group may differ (Tidwell, 2002), these differences allow for multiple
ways of knowing to be discussed, understood, and accepted (Marano, 1998). In this
community, colleagues can confirm and oppose findings (Tidwell, 2002) as critical
friends (Berry & Crowe, 2006). Through probing and questioning, group members
are able to encourage deeper thought, new solutions, unrealized causes, and multi-
ple perspectives to reduce bias in the research and assist with clarifying findings and
solutions.
The influence of the group on this study was twofold. First, members pushed my
thinking by working to reframe my thoughts, data, and experiences. As we reported
out in monthly meetings or offered feedback on the Social Studies Self-Study Group
Blog, others would frequently ask questions about the thinking or perspective of the

144 A.L. Hostetler
researcher. This push was a necessary aspect of my research that was unattainable
alone. Without this reframing individual researchers would be left to our unchecked
assumptions and unexamined perceptions. For example, as I was framing my initial
research questions a participant commented with the following post:
You mentioned that you are interested in looking at how your graduate work affects your
teaching practice and thinking as a teacher. You then mention that you want to see how this
influences your effectiveness in both situations. Can you say more about what you mean by
effectiveness . There are plenty of ways you can approach this and I was wondering if you
had thought about what you mean or if you are going to just pay attention to it as you go
along? (T. S. Hawley, Blog Response, January 31, 2009)
This question helped me reframe what I intended to question as well as my own
thinking about what effective teaching is in social studies. As a result this helped to
shape my work and learning throughout the study.
Secondly, the group worked to keep me accountable to my commitment. The
decision to journal daily and post to the Blog regularly were difficult commitments
while teaching full time and taking two graduate courses. Looking forward to our
monthly meetings held me accountable for this voluntary commitment. Both the
fear of letting group members down and a desire to be seen as a valuable member
of the group were experienced during the process. Group meetings took place at
participants’ homes once a month and regularly lasted 4 or 5 h. The group grew into
a true professional learning community as we worked and learned together about
self-study, social studies education, and each other’s experiences with this research
endeavor.
The Self-Study Design
Research Questions
As a first year doctoral student I became very interested in my own professional
development and the influence of graduate school on my teaching practice. Dewey
(1910) stated “[t]he power of sustained thinking on matters remote from direct use
is an outgrowth of practical and immediate modes of thought, but not a substitute for
them” (p. 142). Theory can serve as a foundation to support and facilitate decision
making and action in practice. However, there may be a divide between our own
“rhetoric and reality” (Zeichner, 1999, p. 12).
Several authors have argued for the potential of self-study to bridge theory and
practice through alignment of beliefs, intent, and practice (Loughran & Northfield,
1998; LaBoskey, 2004a; Russell, 2004). The words “bridge” and “alignment” are
used purposefully. A mere link or connection implies a less deliberate influence. Out
of this desire to observe the influence of graduate school theory on my own teach-
ing beliefs and practice the following research question emerged: How dograduate
studies influence my teaching practice pedagogically and professionally? Through
this question I examined the decisions made, behaviors, and interactions I had with

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 145
my students and colleagues, as they might be influenced by graduate studies and to
work toward improving my teaching practice. My approach was initially to observe
whether or not an influence existed and was quickly reframed with the help of col-
laboration to include the following question: How canI use my graduate studies to
influence my teaching practice?
Context
This study took place from December 2008 through May 2009. I engaged in this
study as both a student in graduate school and a full-time social studies teacher. I
am currently finishing my first year of graduate school at a large midwestern uni-
versity in a doctoral program for Curriculum and Instruction in Social Studies. As
a teacher, I am finishing my seventh year of teaching and fifth consecutive year
as a full-time teacher at a middle class rural/suburban public high school in Ohio.
The high school has a student population between 900 and 1,000 students with few
minority students, a graduation rate of 96.3% and an attendance rate of 95.6%. The
building and the district administration, faculty, and staff pride themselves on hav-
ing achieved a state rating of “excellent” and “excellent with distinction” in recent
years. The collaborative group engaging in this self-study consisted of six mem-
bers: two teacher education professors and four graduate students (one masters level
and three doctoral level). Two of the graduate students were teaching secondary
social studies full time at the time and two had taken leave to be at the univer-
sity full-time. All six members of the group were social studies teachers or teacher
educators.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection was qualitative and the analysis was systematic and focused on
pulling out themes to begin to develop findings. Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998)
stated that data collection for self-study should utilize a variety of qualitative
methods.
Data Collection
Data for this study was collected from December 2008 through May 2009 using
journaling, posts to the Social Studies Self-Study Blog, and notes and transcripts
from monthly self-study collaborative group meetings. Journaling occurred as I
engaged in teaching and graduate studies. These journal entries were meant to be
more analytic about decisions made, experiences had, and thoughts or impressions
of outcomes. Journal entries were made five to six times a week. Posts to our col-
laborative group’s blog were made once or twice a month, seven total, and meant
to be more synthetic. In doing so I hoped to discuss themes, impressions, con-
clusions, and receive feedback and questions from my critical friends to push my
thinking about my experience and improvement in practice. Collaborative group
meetings were used to encourage discussion on each member’s study and help to

146 A.L. Hostetler
reframe our individual experiences in a mutually constructed reality and push our
thinking about “good” social studies teaching and learning. These meetings took
place once a month between December 2008 and June 2009 rotating between the
homes of each member of the group for food and discussion. These conversations
were recorded and transcribed. The acts of visiting homes, cooking and eating
food, and engaging in meaningful discussion and sharing were essential to creat-
ing a community of learners and critical friendships that led to high-quality inquiry
research.
Data Analysis
A systematic analysis of data was used to draw conclusions from this self-study.
Each data source was read, re-read, and coded for themes and outcomes. First,
coding was done for themes without the lens of research questions in an attempt
to identify unexpected conclusions and connections. Second, data were revisited
and coded for themes relevant to the research questions and topics discussed. As
sources were re-read and analyzed for frequency and significance of themes, data
were organized and findings emerged.
What I Learned from this Self-Study
Near the beginning of this self-study I questioned the influence of this method of
research on what I was studying in a blog post:
I wonder how much of this is part of a kind of self-fulfilling phenomena? How has my
selection of what to write about from that day been impacted by my knowledge of doing
this study, and beyond that am I making specific decisions throughout the day knowing that
they would tie in nicely to this study? Is this a bad or good thing? (Blog Post, January 25,
2009).
What I would later come to realize is that this was a good thing. I intended to ques-
tion the validity of self-study as a research methodology, but through this question
was able to show how self-study, even early on, helped to develop an influence of
graduate studies on my decision making as a teacher. Because of the self-study,
I purposefully enacted what I was learning from graduate studies in my teaching
practice. Self-study facilitated improvement in my teaching through bridging the
gap between theory and practice by encouraging me to put the theory, strategies,
and ideas generated in graduate school into practice in pedagogical and professional
teaching behavior and decision making.
With my intention having been reframed to help facilitate the influence of gradu-
ate studies on my teaching practice pedagogically and professionally, this section
presents the findings of this self-study on how graduate studies can influence
teaching practice pedagogically and professionally. For the purposes of this study
pedagogical was defined as thinking about and practicing, distinguishing between
what is appropriate from what is less appropriate for students in the education

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 147
setting (van Manen, 1999). Professional included all other interactions (e.g., with
colleagues, administrators, parents, committees, and staff meetings).
The major finding of this study was that self-study has the power to bridge learn-
ing in graduate studies with teaching practice to align intent with reality. Related
to this major finding, three themes emerged from the data that show how self-study
bridged the learning in graduate studies with teaching practice. These areas include
theinfluence of image and efficacy on effective teaching ,engagement and student
resistance from expectations , and transition from reflective practitioner to focused
inquiry stance .
Influence of Image and Efficacy on Effective Teaching
As this study progressed I noticed a significant increase in both my image and effi-
cacy as a teacher. I began to feel more confident about the decisions I was making
and theoretically justified in my pedagogical and professional behavior.
Pedagogically, the influence of graduate studies is evident through a variety of
journal and blog entries. In a blog post, I noted that because of graduate school “I
am just now starting to really think about what ‘good’ means to me as a social stud-
ies teacher. I lacked purpose, and a justification for what I did/do in my teaching”
(Blog Post, February 10, 2009). There were also a variety of instructional choices
influenced by graduate school:
For myself, having now worked on an initial draft of a rationale that is informed by many of
my experiences here at [the University] as I am in the midst of a self-study, I see and write
about what I do daily that is connected to my learning in graduate school. For example,
sharing my rationale with my students, differences in the types of questions I ask, having
‘real’ and difficult conversations with students on topics like race, challenging students to
participate in activities and offering extra credit that get them to ACT on their environment
where they see problems or challenges to be improved/solved, when discussing LDCs we
focused much more on global issues (e.g., poverty) and deliberated on solutions and level
of action, identifying and pushing my students to identify and define social justice, chal-
lenging myself to teach from a perspective of unconditional positive regard for my students
(Rogers), bringing multiple perspectives into class with readings/articles, reduced use and
reliance on textbook, use of a Blog to offer places outside of class (since we seem to run out
of time often in the midst of a ‘good’ discussion), evaluating text and sources of information
not just for accuracy and reliability but for perspective, bias (gender, class, racial, etc.) and
I could go on with other examples (Blog Post, March 12, 2009).
This portion of a blog post illustrates the clear influence of graduate studies on what
I decided to do, how I see myself as a teacher, and my effectiveness as a classroom
teacher.
As stated in the post “I have a ‘new found’ confidence in what I am doing in
my classroom. I still look to colleagues for ‘advice’ but have found myself feeling
justified in the decisions I am making as a teacher” (Blog Post, March 12, 2009).
The decisions I was making were primarily related to a shift from a content focus
to a more constructivist pedagogy. I was realizing that how I intended to teach and
the experiences I wanted my students to have in my classroom were often different

148 A.L. Hostetler
from the experiences they were actually having. I came to recognize this through
thinking about my own effectiveness as a teacher and how I define and determine
effective social studies teaching and learning. Prior to this study students were often
engaged, but typically this engagement was limited to activities I view as less than
powerful experiences. For example, students were attentive and taking notes during
lecture, discussion, or individual/small group worksheet activities. However, most
students were overly concerned with the facts and content they would need to know
for the test. This preoccupation with “what will be on the test,” as students often
asked, took away from many of my citizenship objectives and what I had intended
to be more powerful aspects of learning about social studies through examination
of social justice issues and civic action. Self-study facilitated a change in pedagog-
ical practice through making known this gap and encouraging solutions to begin
bridging intent and reality, personal theory and actual practice.
Professionally, I began to take notice of “racism and issues of equity, hegemony,
and power relationships” (Journal Entry, February 5, 2009) in the school environ-
ment. These phenomena existed long before I began graduate school, but existed as
sources of frustration only. Through self-study and graduate school these events sur-
faced in my conscience as structures and conditions that need to be worked against.
I felt empowered and engaged. An incident spanning the end of March 2009 through
early April 2009 helps to illustrate this. A corporate not-for-profit group had pro-
vided our Economics curriculum for 15 or more years. This group introduced us to
new “standards of implementation.” As I expressed my discontent “about a cor-
porately sponsored organization trying to ‘strong arm’ us into compliance with
their implementation standards” (Journal Entry, March, 24, 2009), I reflected on
my increased willingness to refuse to teach in a way that I felt contradicted my ped-
agogical beliefs about the purpose of teaching social studies, how students should be
engaged, and what content is of most worth. As meetings and other communications
ensued I found support grew among colleagues and administrators as I explained my
position using theoretical support.
Events such as this helped lead to a greater sense of professional efficacy and
a newer, stronger image of myself as teacher. Another example also shows this. I
“accepted [a] dual credit course, not because I agree with dual credit, but because I
want influence” (Journal Entry, February 10, 2009). I was becoming more and more
confident in what I do and can do as a teacher. I believed that I could take a program
I did not entirely agree with and influence it in ways that would make it a positive
experience for students.
Engagement and Student Resistance from Expectations
Although much of the journaling and blogging consisted of somewhat predictable
themes, this particular theme was a surprise to me. Prior to this study I overlooked
the influence of student expectations in my classroom. After a few years of teaching
I had recognized student dissonance and often wondered why students so fre-
quently expressed mental discomfort with student-centered, constructivist, thinking

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 149
and learning. I now know that this dissonance manifested as resistance through voic-
ing a desire to have the teacher “just give [students] what [they] need for the test,”
and pushing me as the teacher to organize lessons in ways that align with their
expectations as students. It was shocking that I had not recognized this before this
self-study and it was mentioned with more frequency than any other theme, over
74 times throughout the journal, and one entire blog post out of seven devoted to
the subject. As I attempted to lessen my role as sole generator of understanding, the
contradiction to student expectations often resulted in their resistance, dissonance,
and what I perceived to be reduced motivation. Could all of this be because my
students are not used to learning and thinking in ways that position the students as
producers of knowledge and teacher as facilitator?
Pedagogically, student motivation is a phenomenon many classroom teachers
struggle with. How do I get students to engage in what we are doing? Student
engagement is a part of what I consider “effective social studies teaching” (Journal
Entry, February 27, 2009). Much of the journal and one of the seven blog posts was
devoted to frustration experienced when students did not appear to be as engaged as I
thought or hoped they would be during a lesson. “I find myself ‘looking’ for ways to
motivate [this student]” (Journal Entry, January, 22, 2009). As the semester goes on
this theme of trying to find ways to engage students in powerful, student-centered,
social studies continued until the last 2 months of entries. In the final months of the
study the frustration subsided and stories of success emerged.
Success, in this case, was increasing student engagement as a way to motivate
students, increase interest, and overcome student resistance. This resistance was
largely due to the ways in which my attempts to incorporate theoretically sound
pedagogy into my classroom contradicted what students had come to expect and
view as good teaching. The dissonance students experienced was a result of this
contradiction and it manifested itself as resistance to my attempts to let go of
teacher-centered, authoritarian instruction, procedures, and routines. This adverse
student reaction made it particularly challenging to use what I learned in grad-
uate school in effective ways. Successes in being more effective at motivating
students to engage in powerful learning experiences could be attributed to incor-
porating controversial issues as a focus of class discussion and inquiry. “I did not
want to cut short a court case debate/argument [affirmative action, death penalty,
and race issues] that led to great discussion” (Journal Entry, April 1, 2009). Two
subsequent journal entries in May discussed similar experiences with small group
discussions on national and global poverty and gender issues in the workplace
(Journal Entry, May 1–2, 2009). During these experiences students were attentive
and working just as diligently as during more teacher-centered activities in lessons
prior to this study. However, there was a noticeable reduction in student concern
over the facts and content that might be on the unit assessment. I attributed this
change to (1) constructing more democratic assessments by allowing students to
generate questions, reducing multiple choice and matching questions, and allow-
ing for more free response and essay response, (2) the new classroom focus on
students as the primary generators of knowledge and understanding and the teach-
ers as the facilitator and asker of questions, and (3) the introduction of more

150 A.L. Hostetler
relevant and controversial issues as a vehicle through which to teach democratic
participatory citizenship. Through collaborative reframing of this issue and the
context of the issue I discovered that the problem of student resistance to peda-
gogical change could be resolved by focusing on engaging students in powerful
social studies experiences, and adjusting assessments to align with the methods
of instruction and the knowledge and understandings developed by students and
teacher.
As we discussed teacher and student voices in a graduate class (Spring 2009) it
became clear how important I thought my voice was, as both a teacher and a student.
As a result I created a class blog where I hoped to engage students in meaningful
discussions and allow them to have a voice. The intention of creating the class blog
was to provide space for students to extend class discussion in a democratic fashion
using technology. Unexpectedly, students began to use the class blog to promote stu-
dent activism. Allowing students to use the class blog for initiating, organizing, and
gathering support for activism exemplified a significant shift in my belief–intent–
practice relationship. “My blog posts on the [class] website …are evidence of my
focus more on participatory democratic citizenship and civic action …encouraging
[students] to be mature, calm, and patient, and discussed realities of organizing
group activism” (Journal Entry, April 16, 2009), by allowing students to make their
own choices about what to do and how to do it. My shift in focus from “teacher giv-
ing the answer” to asking students what they think they should do in organizing a
group to engage in student activism, gave them a voice, led to the same conclusion,
or better conclusions than I would have given them in terms of choice of action.
As students shared their experiences (van Manen, 1999) and added to the collective
understanding about how to engage in civic action, they became more engaged in
class as cultural and social agents (LaBoskey, 2004a).
Professionally, I interacted differently with colleagues when it came to issues
of student activism and engagement. During the spring semester 2009, students
self-organized for the purposes of allowing a homosexual couple to attend prom
and to save the AP Art program at the high school. It is noteworthy to men-
tion that this is the most significant student activism I encountered in my 7
years of teaching and 5 years at this particular high school. “This is how I mea-
sure success …I believe I encouraged and at least allowed an open dialogue on
our class blog and in class discussion despite my ‘fears’ of being reprimanded”
by colleagues and administration (Journal Entry, April 23–24, 2009). I am not
suggesting that this activism occurred because of my teaching; however, I was
interested in my own willingness to allow for open student discussion about
these issues and activism. For example, in the past I would have regularly cut
short or redirected controversial discussions to prevent hurt feelings or an emo-
tionally charged classroom environment for fear I may lose control of student
behavior. In doing so I was missing an opportunity to help students learn how
to resolve conflict and engage in democratic deliberation in emotionally charged
situations. Allowing students to make decisions in a less restrictive, less teacher-
centered classroom opened the door for meaningful discussion and democratic
action.

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 151
Transition from Reflective Practitioner to Focused Inquiry Stance
The fact that reflection would occur was a foregone conclusion knowing that I was
engaging in self-study. What interested me the most was the reflection-in-action
(Schön, 1983). Pedagogically, I noticed that I often made excuses for why I could
not do something before I would even try and do it. As I am sure many teachers
do, I would discount proposed solutions, theories, and strategies before trying them
because I assumed social conditions of time, having outdated technology, my admin-
istration, colleagues, or students would not allow or accept it. What I was hoping
for as an outcome was in no way aligned with or facilitated by the choices I was
making. As I recognized this “I …[began to] question if my practice aligns, or how
frequently does it align with my beliefs” (Journal Entry, February 2, 2009).
Pedagogically and professionally, I reflected regularly on how assessments, time
limits, social conditions, knowing my students, and coping strategies as a teacher
dealing with frustration influenced my teaching and were influenced by graduate
studies.
Besides these changes in my methods as a reflection of changes in my educational philos-
ophy I have written often about benefits in my own professional development and thinking
about what is ‘good’ social studies teaching …1. Asking why am I doing this? …2. I have
started discussions with my colleagues on a daily basis concerning the curricular deci-
sions we make …3. Professionally my development has been thrown into ‘hyperdrive’ …4.
Frustration continues to be a theme, but it is a result of such constant effort to improve and
evolve as a social studies teacher, because it is difficult and often met with challenges and
obstacles …(Blog Post, March 12, 2009).
It became evident to me through these posts and journaling that graduate studies
did not force reflection, but it did focus my reflection. This self-study added to
the process by taking focused reflection and giving it a formalized process through
which to more effectively improve my teaching practice. By providing a framework
for in-depth inquiry, intended to be made public, with the purpose of improving my
own teaching and adding to the collective understanding of social education through
teaching for social change, self-study has helped to facilitate a deep examination of
my own beliefs and intent and how these are aligned with practice, thus leading to
more effective teaching. Furthermore, this experience helped me develop ways of
approaching social studies teaching and learning that are inquiry based, focused,
and intended to improve teaching.
Discussion
Much of the literature on self-study, teacher education, and social education sup-
ports the findings of this self-study. Teacher image is a reflection of beliefs that
influence action. Korthegen (2004) described how beliefs lead to actions. This strong
connection shows how effective professional development influences participants’
beliefs about teaching, learning, and the role of the teacher in these experiences.

152 A.L. Hostetler
For me, thinking about my role in the teaching and learning experience was foun-
dational for strengthening my image of self as a teacher and increasing my sense
of teacher efficacy. Nearing the end of the study it became obvious to me that self-
study helped to build a bridge between learning in graduate school and putting that
learning into practice by pushing my thinking and deconstructing prior beliefs about
what were previously thought to be obstacles to implementation. As I continue to
develop a better understanding of self-study and social studies education I realize
more than ever the significance of assuming an inquiry stance. However, along with
this inquiry stance comes a commitment to a practice that critically examines ones
own teaching and learning, and pedagogically employs a constructivist approach to
teaching social studies.
Darling-Hammond (2006) discussed the link between teacher efficacy and effec-
tiveness, the greater the sense of efficacy the more effective the teacher. As this
self-study unfolded teacher efficacy and image emerged as a significant theme and
led to what I believed to be more effective teaching. I also experienced a subsequent
increase in efficacy. This increased efficacy led to more effective teaching through
decision making informed by theoretically grounded, defensible judgments instead
of making decisions based on real or perceived obstacles to implementation, such
as, time limits, fear of reprimand, or standardized testing. Because I have examined
and tested beliefs about teaching and learning in a critical collaboration, I feel more
justified, confident, and effective as a teacher.
The expectations of teacher and students in my classroom were an outgrowth
of our beliefs, which through self-study were challenged during this semester.
Schommer (1998) discussed that student beliefs about learning are a product of
home and formal education. Since many students’ formal education consists of
fact recall and teacher-centered drill instruction this is what they come to expect.
Encountering something that contradicts their belief that knowledge is fixed (Schön,
1983) causes dissonance and if pushed enough, resistance. Without self-study this
resistance might have overwhelmed me as a teacher resulting in a regression to
more teacher-centered instruction. The accountability component of collaborative
self-study worked to push me to understand this resistance by reframing the context
of the situation and encouraging creative problem-solving to use engagement as a
strategy to work through student resistance to pedagogy that contradicts their expec-
tations of social education and classroom instruction. Essentially, teacher-centered
instruction in authoritarian climates is what students have learned to be “good”
teaching through an apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975/2002). Self-study
helped to keep my efforts focused on working through these challenges and helped
me to be more effective in engaging in social studies.
Power and Promise of Self-Study in Social Education
Despite reports of often limited or non-existent influence of teacher education pro-
grams on teacher beliefs (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981), I was a product of a
high-quality teacher education program that did influence me and, as a result, have
been a reflective practitioner throughout my 7 years as a social studies teacher. I saw

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 153
this as a good thing, and continue to. This stance also led to an open-mindedness
about engaging in self-study. However, I was not expecting to experience such
strong connections between self-study and social studies or between self-study and
sustained professional development. I came to realize that self-study can exert influ-
ence on the teaching and learning beliefs of preservice and in-service social studies
teachers and more effectively bridge the gap between theory and practice, between
intent and action.
The Self-Study and Social Studies Relationship
Social education is for social change (Dewey, 1910). As stated in this chapter,
Dewey’s conception of education for social change is a key characteristic of teach-
ing for democratic citizenship and the skills and knowledge suggested by NCSS help
to prepare students to engage in societal change through participation in a democ-
racy. The intent is not to sit idle, but to work toward new ventures. This is the only
way our democracy will survive (Counts, 1939). Likewise, Myers (2002) argued
that self-study, by design, works to promote social change beginning with self and
pushing outward. If we want society to change we must set an example for others to
follow by engaging in a careful and deliberate examination of our own beliefs and
understanding then making public our findings (Russell, 2004) so as to add to the
collective understanding of social education and begin to work for positive social
change. Social studies teachers, through inquiry research like self-study, can work
to not only improve their own practice, but to help colleagues, schools, and society
to improve. Lortie (1975/2002) argued that craft pride is often centered on instruc-
tional outcomes and relationships with students. What if craft pride was centered on
social change or on citizenship action in society?
Self-study has a special relationship with social studies education. This relation-
ship is strengthened by the common purpose of social change through a democratic
and collaborative process. Self-study, like social studies, promotes inquiry, ques-
tioning, and collaboration to frame and reframe experiences for the purposes of
improving aspects of our society, whether it be education, social education, teacher
education, poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, or other issues of social justice.
Self-Study and the Power to Bridge Theory and Practice
“[H]ow many teachers truly engage in such inquiry into their practice and use this
stance to effectively improve their own practice and/or the practice of others?”
(Journal Entry, April 5, 2009). As I thought about what I meant by improve and in an
earlier post what I mean by effective teaching , it became clear to me that these essen-
tially mean “ …accomplishing what it is I hope to achieve …” (Blog Post, January
31, 2009). In other words, aligning intent with action. Zeichner (1999) argued that
there is a gap between our “rhetoric and reality.” This gap can be bridged through
self-study. Essential to this process are the development of questions for focusing
the research, the collection of data through qualitative methods, keeping an open

154 A.L. Hostetler
mind and a willingness to try new ideas, and collaboration with critical friends for
reframing experiences. Through this process, discussed throughout the chapter, it is
possible to critically examine beliefs about teaching and learning. During this exam-
ination, assumptions and misconceptions surface and are challenged, and beliefs
about “good” social studies teaching change to be more aligned with research-
supported educational theory and practice. A change in beliefs leads to a change
in action (Korthegen, 2004), and this change in action is what most “good” social
studies teachers are looking for in reflective practice and professional development.
The resulting higher sense of efficacy, for me, led to a willingness to incorporate
learning into practice, but through focused inquiry and critical collaboration I was
held accountable for my effectiveness in aligning intent and reality of pedagogical
and professional practice.
Furthermore, self-study promotes a sustained professional development for
social studies teachers. As reflective practitioners, effective social studies teachers
should revel in the opportunity to learn how to formalize and focus their reflective
efforts into a stance of inquiry that results in a deep examination of beliefs about
teaching and learning. Knowing that these beliefs can lead to individual change
if experiences are reframed through a critical collaboration with colleagues can
result in individual improvement. In addition, working collaboratively helps oth-
ers to improve in their practice and understanding of “good” social studies teaching
and learning.
Conclusion
This chapter outlined a conception of self-study and its potential to lead to individ-
ual improvement and social change in social education and provided an example
of a self-study conducted in the spring semester of 2009. In this example, it is evi-
dent that self-study has a strong connection to social studies and powerful promise
for improving individual practice and our collective understanding of social edu-
cation. Teaching is a relationship, reflection is essential (Loughran, 1999) and that
relationship, when reflection is focused, purposeful, and formalized, has a profound
influence on the lives of students and teachers, and leads us all toward a stronger
democracy through modeling active engagement in inquiry as a means of promoting
social change.
Part of “good” teaching can be learned through high-quality teacher education
programs that encourage inquiry, reflective practice, and sound educational theory
and methodology. I believe many teachers view theory as irrelevant because they
do not see it as practical in the “real world” of teaching social studies. However, as
illustrated in this chapter, theory can work to create a sound foundation for teacher
decision making, behavior, and problem-solving. This foundation, reflective of indi-
vidual beliefs about teaching and learning, is essential to improving efficacy and in
turn effectiveness, but is not often recognized by social studies teachers as practi-
cal. This chapter has argued for theory in social education as practical and relevant,
when effectively bridged to practice through collaborative self-study.

9 Self-Study’s Influence on Graduate Studies and Social Studies Teaching 155
References
Åkerlind, G. S. (2008). A phenomenographic approach to developing academics’ understanding of
the nature of teaching and learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 13 (6), 633–644.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L.S. (2004). Teaching History for the common good .M a h w a h ,N J :
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Berry, A., & Crowe, A. R. (2006). Extending our boundaries through self-study: Framing a
research agenda through beginning a critical friendship. In L. M. Fitzgerald, M. L. Heston,
&D .L .T i d w e l l( E d s . ) , Collaboration and community: Pushing boundaries through self-
study .Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education
Practices (pp. 31–35). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa.
Cochran-Smith, M. A. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators.
Teaching and Teacher Education ,19, 5–28.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and university culture.
In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. Laboskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 602–649). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Counts, G. S. (1939). The schools can teach democracy. New York: The John Day.
Crowe, A. R., & Whitlock, T. W. (1999, April). The education of teacher educators: A self-study
of the professional development of two doctoral students in teacher education . Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (Eric
Document, ED430942)
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs .
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think . New York: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1937). Education and social change. The Social Frontier, 3 (26), 235–238.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting
reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education ,54(1), 6–18.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strength and
sustain teaching. Teaching College Record ,103(6), 1013–1055.
Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1998). Conclusion: The value and the promise of self-study. In
M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education
(pp. 235–246). London: Falmer.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic
approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education ,20, 77–97.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004a). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In
J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International hand-
book of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004b). Afterword. Moving the methodology of self-study research and practice
forward: Challenges and opportunities. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey,
& T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education
practices (pp. 1169–1184). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original
work published 1975)
Loughran, J.J. (1999). Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding
pedagogy . Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In
M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teacher practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp.
7–18). London: Falmer.
Marano, N. L. (1998). The teaching learning dialectic: Two cases of teachers in graduate school.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (4), 429–443.

156 A.L. Hostetler
Myers, C. B. (2002). Can self-study challenge the belief that telling, showing, and guided practice
constitute adequate teacher education? In J. J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher
education practices through self-study (pp. 130–142). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2001, May). Position statement on creating effec-
tive citizens . Retrieved from http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/effectivecitizens , May 11,
2009.
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D., & Hawley T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative self-
study into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice. 2 (3), 341–357.
Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/2.3.3.pdf , May 23, 2009.
Russell, T. (2004). Tracing the development of self-study in teacher education research and prac-
tice. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1191–1210).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. The British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 (4), 551–562.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action .N e wY o r k :
Basic Books.
Tidwell, D. (2002). A balancing act: Self-study in valuing the individual student. In J. J. Loughran
& T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through self-study (pp. 30–42).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Tyson, C. A., & Park, S. C. (2008). Civic education, social justice and critical race theory. In
J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and
democracy (pp. 355–366). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
van Manen, M. (1999). The language of pedagogy and primacy of student experience. In J.
J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practice for understanding
pedagogy (pp. 13–27). London: Falmer.
Zeichner, K. M. (1999). The new scholarship of teacher education. Educational Leadership ,28(9),
4–15.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education
“washed out” by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32 (3), 7–11.

Chapter 10
Complicating Coherence: Self-Study Research
and Social Studies Teacher Education Programs
and Practices
Todd Dinkelman
The main argument of this chapter—that self-study offers great potential to promote
more coherent social studies teacher education programs—is neither complex nor
controversial. Indeed, there is so much “common sense” to the idea, I feel compelled
to justify why such a straightforward proposition warrants an entire book chapter
for its elaboration. Rather than provide that justification first, my hope is that an
adequate justification emerges from my elaboration of the argument itself.
The elaboration takes several different turns. First I draw on recent literature
on effective teacher education programs to complicate the ways in which program
coherence has been conceptualized. Then I turn to teacher education research, par-
ticularly in social studies education, to highlight how self-study research might shed
light on the nature and practices of preparing social studies teachers for profes-
sional practice. Finally, I further the elaboration through illustration, as I describe
a social studies teacher education program that has been influenced by self-study
research over a number of years and how this work has contributed to program
reform, especially reform toward greater program coherence. In short, my case is
that self-study research can generate important insights into the work of social stud-
ies teacher education, insights teacher educators might put to work in the service of
more powerfully coherent programs.
Complicating Coherence
Returning to the idea of common sense, one hardly needs to mine educational
research to find support for the idea that coherence is an important and val-
ued feature that sets apart more from less effective teacher education programs.
Teacher education programs grounded in strikingly divergent reform traditions
and paradigms may reflect different aims, organization, and methods (Liston &
Zeichner, 1991). Images of teaching and learning, sequence of courses, nature of
T. Dinkelman (B)
University of Georgia, 629 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA
e-mail: tdink@uga.edu
157 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_10, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

158 T. Dinkelman
field experiences, standards for admission, conceptions of subject matter, faculty
commitment, collaboration with schools, forms of assessment, field supervision—
how these and countless other shared features are organized and implemented define
teacher education programs and distinguish them from each other. At its simplest,
coherence simply refers to how well these features are arranged and work together
toward shared purposes (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, &
Shulman, 2005).
Going further, Hammerness (2006) draws from Feiman-Nemser (1990) to dis-
tinguish two different forms of coherence—conceptual and structural—embedded
in teacher education programs. Although not every feature of teacher education
clearly falls within one category or the other, the two terms help set apart impor-
tant features on the map of program coherence. Tom (1997) makes use of the same
conceptual and structural distinction to group the 11 “design principles” he proposes
to guide the reform of teacher education. Conceptual coherence refers to degree of
shared vision held by teacher educators in a particular program. To what extent
do they share agreement on the principles, ideas, and views of powerful teaching
and learning supporting their work? To what extent do the views of cooperating
school teachers reflect “collaborative resonance” (Cochran-Smith, 1991) with the
intellectual commitments of university-based teacher educators? Structural coher-
ence concerns the manner in which various program features and logistics (e.g.,
courses, practicums) are organized to work together. How does a particular sequence
of various university-based courses support different kinds of field experiences?
Does grouping preservice students in cohorts facilitate linkages between field and
university coursework?
The ideas of conceptual and structural coherence provide a starting point for
thinking about the design of coherent teacher education programs. Yet I believe the
two categories fall short of encompassing what many teacher educators have in mind
when thinking about coherence. Drawing from the field of curriculum studies, ideas
of the enacted or experienced curriculum point to an additional way of recasting
the problem of coherence. Ross (2001) describes the enacted curriculum in terms of
“the day-to-day interactions among students, teachers and subject matter” (p. 30).
The enacted or experienced curriculum is set apart from the formal curriculum by its
attention to the actual learning that results from the educational moment, as opposed
to the intended learning reflected in curriculum documents. The emphasis is on the
quality of the particular learning experience for the learner.
This same idea applied to teacher education programs yields a third category
of coherence— enacted coherence. Enacted coherence extends the lens of analysis
beyond the conceptual (i.e., the concepts and ideas that form a program’s vision for
teacher education) and structural (i.e., the logistics, organization, and sequence of
teacher education components) to include the ways in which prospective teachers
actually experience and live their teacher education programs. Enacted coherence
refers to the degree to which the actual experiences of a teacher education program
fit together across time and settings and work toward program aims. In this sense,
enacted coherence is not revealed in program descriptions, frameworks, and course
sequences. As Zeichner and Conklin (2005) remind us, “ …a program described by

10 Complicating Coherence 159
teacher educators may be different from the one experienced by teacher education
students” (p. 648). Howey (1996) echoes this point and suggests why enactment
matters: “Ultimately preservice programs manifest their coherence in the type of
pedagogy modeled for and engaged in by preservice students” (p. 143).
Yet enacted coherence, as I use the term, encompasses more than pedagogy.
Clearly pedagogy is crucial to enactment, but so too are other concerns. Enacted
coherence, the manifest coherence of a teacher education program, also is shaped
by beliefs and perspectives about the work of teaching that prospective teachers
bring with them to teacher education programs, contexts of teacher education pro-
grams, nature of learning community that forms among those who share time and
space as they learn to teach, stances toward reflective inquiry communicated by
teachers encountered in field experiences, and so forth. Everything that influences
the way prospective teachers experience, how they makes sense of or give meaning
to a program of teacher education can be understood to potentially affect enacted
coherence.
Not only is it difficult to account for all that explains enacted coherence, the
complexity of the construct, played out as it is in the remarkably dense nexus of
programs and people in diverse contexts, means that enacted coherence is exceed-
ingly challenging to identify. How would we know it, if we saw it? What does it
look like? This same complexity also poses problems for teacher educators who
would like to see more of it in their programs. Claims about enacted coherence
are claims about how program experiences, the real and lived “what happens” of
a program, work together, build, and develop meaning among those who live and
learn in the program. The complexity borders on mystery and accounts for why
we will never know for certain what teacher education “does” to prospective teach-
ers (Britzman, 2003). The sheer and utter complexity of enacted coherence, as is
true about many aspects of experience in teacher education, may go far to explain
the refrain sounded over and over again in periodic reviews of research in teacher
education, and stated colloquially—“we have lots to learn.” What many teacher
educators most want to know, what matters most to the quality of a teacher edu-
cation program (e.g., how coherent is our program?) is often the most difficult to
know.
As complex as it is to work with the idea of enacted coherence, the idea is central
to my argument for what self-study might offer both research and practice in social
studies teacher education. In the following section, I discuss social studies teacher
education research with attention to what this body of work reveals about coherence,
and even more important to the argument of this chapter, on what this work does not
reveal. The contention is that collaborative self-study research can serve the aim of
more coherent programs, and thus more effective programs, through the ways it pro-
vides insights into the complexities of enacted teacher education. Though I believe
the contention is true for teacher education in any subject areas or grade levels, the
case for self-study research in social studies teacher education is particularly strong
for several different reasons including the nature of social studies as a curriculum
area, as well as the climate, capacity, and context of social studies teacher education
and teacher education research.

160 T. Dinkelman
Researching Social Studies Teacher Education
What we know for certain about social studies teacher education from research in
social studies teacher education is not much. This dim conclusion is echoed through
research reviews of social studies teacher education in the last two decades (Banks
& Parker, 1990; Adler, 1991; Armento 1996; Adler, 2008). All seem to agree that it
is not so much the case that there is no important, telling, engaging research done
in the field. Rather the persistent complaint is that whatever good research has been
done has not been synthesized or connected within coherent programs of research
organized around clear problems facing the field. Most often, diverse research meth-
ods are brought to bear on concepts and problems whose meaning and supporting
theories either are not made clear or shift from study to study. Small-scale studies
stand alone and disconnected from a program of inquiry that would allow the accu-
mulation of formal knowledge. These problems beset research in teacher education
more generally (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005), but they also appear especially
pronounced in social studies teacher education.
One part of the problem for social studies teacher education has to do with the
nature of social studies education itself. As a place on the map of the modern school
curriculum in the United States, social studies has suffered from a lack of agree-
ment about both its definition and its purposes (Marker & Mehlinger, 1992; Evans,
2004; Ross, 2006). The apparent consensus around social studies as preparation
for democratic citizenship masks deep and continuing disagreements about form
(e.g., is social studies its own unified field or simply a confederation of academic
disciplines?), methods (e.g., is social studies best taught through controversy and
discussion or though stories and telling?), and conceptions of democratic citizen-
ship (e.g., are good citizens critically engaged toward progressive social change or
are they more inclined toward personal responsibility and civic duty?). These unset-
tled issues pose obvious problems for social studies teacher education, charged as
it is with the preparation of accomplished teachers in a field so unstable about its
vision of accomplished teaching. Disagreements over the proper aims and methods
of social studies teaching and learning reflect themselves in the structures and prac-
tices of social studies teacher education programs. As a result, research in social
studies teacher education is likely to mirror the fragmented nature of social studies
itself.
Other important features that set the context of research in social studies teacher
education include who does the research and the conditions in which this work
is done. In the United States, social studies teacher education programs are well
represented in college and university-based teacher education offerings, but the
responsibility for these programs does not always rest with faculty who would iden-
tify as social studies education faculty. Secondary education and discipline-based
programs, such as teacher education housed in history and other social science
discipline departments, are common. A good indicator of the relatively small pop-
ulation of social studies education researchers is membership in the College and
University Faculty Assembly (CUFA), an associated group of the National Council
for the Social Studies (NCSS), consisting of higher education faculty members,

10 Complicating Coherence 161
graduate students, and others who examine social studies from theoretical and
research perspectives. In 2009, CUFA had a membership of 814. Compare this
number to another research-oriented school subject organization—the National
Association of Research in Science Teaching—with over 1800 members. Also
telling are comparisons among memberships in various American Educational
Research Association (AERA) Special Interest Groups: Research in Social Studies
Education ( n=266), Research in Mathematics Education ( n=595), Science
Teaching and Learning ( n=423), and Writing and Literacies ( n=372) (Bidyut
Acharya, personal communication, July 16, 2009). Clearly the number of social
studies education researchers is not large, and only a fraction of this population
conducts and concerns itself with research on teacher education.
Those few who have taken up social studies teacher education research do so in
college and university settings that make building coordinated programs of research
in teacher education difficult. Labaree (2004) describes a dominant feature in the
history of education schools as the tension between the struggle for academic status
purchased through research and the less respected work of preparing teachers and
other education professionals. Social studies researchers, like many (though not all)
of their education school colleagues, find their professional lives influenced by this
tension (Cole & Knowles, 2004). Most social studies researchers are social studies
teacher educators as well. Like many of their colleagues across schools and colleges
of education, they find themselves balancing institutional and personal expectations
of research productivity on the one hand with the work of labor-intensive teacher
education programs on the other. And this balancing act is played out in a field that
offers little in the way of research funding opportunities. For example, big money
federal grant programs, such as those available in science, math, and technology
education, simply do not exist for research in social studies education. Since 2001,
the Teaching American History grant program, funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, has been a notable exception, but the intent of this program is teacher
professional development, not research on teacher professional development.
In this context, the lack of an accumulated research knowledge base to guide
any aspect of social studies teacher education, including program coherence, is not
surprising. And these conditions are not likely to change any time soon. Again,
the problem is not that there is no good research done on social studies teacher
education. Adler (2008) points to diverse and important work addressing socials
studies methods courses, field experiences, teacher beliefs and perspectives, diver-
sity, technology, and pedagogical content knowledge. The issue is more that the
small-scale, individualistic nature of these studies makes it difficult to develop
generally accepted claims about how social studies teacher education works. In
addition, the survey and case study methods typical of much of this work, especially
over the last few decades, tend to wash over the unique program and participant con-
text features so important to investing findings with meaning. Put simply, the current
body of research in social studies teacher education provides little insight into the
nature, presence, and development of enacted coherence.
My argument is that self-study might address this shortcoming. By definition,
enacted coherence is always situated coherence. The notion of situated coherence

162 T. Dinkelman
draws on the view of teaching as “situated practice,” an idea that Liston and
Zeichner (1991) describe in terms of “teachers as social actors engaged in prac-
tices within particular context …[and] the unacknowledged institutional and social
context of this practice as well as its intended and unintended outcomes” (p. 122).
What is true for teachers is true for teacher educators. The various facets of a teacher
education program always work together in ways shaped by its social and institu-
tional context. Just as important, enacted coherence also depends on the pedagogies,
manners of interaction, and perspectives of practice of those teacher educators who
bring particular program designs and structures to life. Thus the very nature of
enacted coherence works against the idea that research will ever provide a wholly
integrated and connected “knowledge base” that would guide both policy and prac-
tice in teacher education, especially so with respect to understudied fields such as
the preparation of social studies teachers.
Yet knowledge and understanding of enacted coherence are crucial in the work
of meaningful social studies teacher education. For many, the appeal of self-study
inquiries are their power to shed light on the mystery of teacher education programs
where it matters most—in their enactment. The history of self-study of teaching
and teacher education research reveals understanding and improving practice as the
driving catalysts in the development of the field (Loughran, 2004a). Contributing
to a broader and more public knowledge base of teacher education also has played
a role. Although a real tension exists between those who advocate self-study for
improved practice and those who would like to see self-study for more generalized
knowledge production, Zeichner has argued these different sorts of purposes are
not mutually exclusive (2007). For my argument, however, self-study research as
a means of learning more about enacted coherence turns on a concern for making
sense of, and improving, the situated practice of teachers and teacher educators.
Several features of self-study research serve the purposes of understanding and
increasing the enacted coherence of teacher education programs. Foremost among
these features, self-study research of teacher education practices, by its very nature,
is grounded in the context of particular teacher education programs. Thus the con-
text of a program, the situated space in which enacted coherence takes shape, finds
its way into self-study research, even as the degree to which program context is
identified, explained, or even made an explicit focus of the inquiry varies. Teacher
educators must look at where they work, if they want to know how the features
of their program work together. Research on the nature and conceptualization of
coherence, how various program designs facilitate it, theories and cases of how
it evolves over time—this work can provide valuable insights about coherence in
general, but enacted coherence is unique to particular program settings. Self-study
research offers opportunities to study these settings.
As well, the selfin self-study research points to an examination of prominent fea-
tures of program coherence—practices and practitioners. The pedagogies and ways
of being teacher educators bring to their programs color the way the program is
experienced by those learning to teach. Typically, self-study of teaching and teacher
education starts from the concerns and felt needs of educators derived from the com-
plexities and unique situations of their work. From this standpoint, Korthagen and
Lunenberg (2004) set self-study research apart from traditional educational research

10 Complicating Coherence 163
along two dimensions directly related to self in self-study: an emphasis on both the
authority of practice and personal practical theories. The authority of practice broad-
ens the category of valued knowledge about teacher education beyond a traditional
focus on expert knowledge to include the wisdom made possible by learning from
practice. Such wisdom feeds into the personal practical theories—the systems of
knowledge, ideas, beliefs, and images that inform the decisions teacher educators
make about and within their program contexts. In short, by a focus on practices and
practitioners nested in particular contexts, self-study research focuses inquiry on
potentially rich sources of insight, on crucial components of enacted coherence.
Besides a focus on practices and practitioners, self-study research stands
to inform enacted coherence through its action or problem-solving orientation
(Loughran & Russell, 2002). The problems and challenges of teacher education
enactment prompt the research questions taken up in self-study research (LaBoskey,
2004). Of course, problems and challenges, especially those encountered in the
ongoing activity of teacher education, are problems and challenges because solu-
tions and fixes are not immediately apparent. Looking at teacher education programs
as interrelated systems, the idea of enacted coherence emphasizes that problems
and challenges encountered in one part of a program are rarely isolated phenom-
ena. Even when self-study methods do not account openly for the interrelatedness
of program activities, knowledge generated from self-study research often leads to
changes in practices, if not changes to the “selves” of those who conduct/frame the
research. These changes echo in the enacted coherence of the larger program.
Finally, the importance of collaboration is an important, repeated theme appar-
ent in self-study of teaching and teacher education practices literature (Loughran,
Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russell, 2004). Other closely related themes include chal-
lenging assumptions, reframing practice, and including the voices of those closest to
the focus of inquiry (Elijah, 2004; LaBoskey, 2004; Loughran, 2004b). All of these
features of self-study research suggest powerful opportunities to both better under-
stand and improve enacted coherence. Obviously, it is hard to imagine a coherent
program in which program participants do not talk to one another. The perspectives
of those who experience the full sweep of a program best serve the aim of coher-
ence when they are brought together. Self-study research not only brings different
perspectives together, but also does so intentionally, systematically, and often with
reference to shared, mutual concerns.
All of these features speak to the potential of self-study research to help teacher
educators develop understanding about enacted coherence, especially in fields such
as social studies teacher education. The collective body of published research
may leave the field wanting to know about how social studies teacher education
programs work to support the development of accomplished social studies teach-
ers. However there is little reason to believe that the conditions for research on
social studies teacher education are likely to change soon. Yet settings already
exist for talented and responsible teacher educators to learn more about their own
practices and the work of programs. Self-study research is an accessible, realis-
tic approach to developing understanding of the lived curriculum and practices
of teacher education programs experienced by the students learning to teach in
them.

164 T. Dinkelman
Self-Study Steps Toward Coherence: An Example
The following section furthers my argument by providing an illustration of how self-
study research prompted an examination of the beliefs and practices of a group of
social studies teacher educators around an important, but previously underexamined
factor central to the quality of enacted coherence in their program. The self-study
research project that provides this illustration was not focused on coherence, but the
collaboration and discussion occasioned by the self-study revealed numerous issues
that speak to the ways preservice teachers experience the program. Here I describe
what we learned about one such issue— the varying expectations about the honesty
and authenticity program instructors encourage among the beginning teachers who
work their way through our program.
Over the past 5 years, the social studies teacher education program featured in
this chapter has been touched by self-study in a variety of ways. Numerous instruc-
tors have conducted self-studies of various features of their work (e.g., Powell &
Hawley, 2009; Ritter 2007, 2009; Ritter, Powell & Hawley, 2007). Other inquiries
into the ways and outcomes of the program have taken place via self-study research
situated in regular seminars in which instructors have attempted to put into practice
the idea of “collaborative inquiry,” a core theme of the program. Many of these semi-
nars provided opportunities for instructors to share problems of practice encountered
in various settings (e.g., methods classes, student teaching field supervision, student
teaching seminars, technology-mediated discussion forums, etc). Other seminars
featured attention on how instructors struggled to come to terms with the principles
and standards underlying the program itself. A recent year-long seminar—ESOC
9700—used Loughran’s Developing a pedagogy of teacher education (2006) as a
base text and took up the challenge suggested by the title to focus discussion.
Some explanation of the context for the seminar helps to frame my discussion
of authenticity and honesty. Twelve times across the two semesters of an academic
year, ESOC 9700 brought together several social studies faculty with social stud-
ies doctoral students serving as graduate teaching assistants in an undergraduate
B.S.Ed. degree program leading to initial secondary teacher certification in one
of four social science disciplines (i.e., history, economics, political science, and
human geography). Although the seminar was pitched as an opportunity to work
toward “developing a pedagogy of teacher education,” most of the seminar time
was spent in discussion of the various problems and issues participants brought to
the seminar on any given day. Admittedly, many of the problems and issues featured
in discussion related to the pedagogy of teacher education. However, the seminar
unfolded more around the particular topics that seminar participants raised at any
given meeting than according to a structured plan.
One commonality shared by all seminar participants was their teacher educa-
tion work in the program. Yet their experiences within the program were diverse
according to the length of time they were formally associated with the program,
their history as instructors of particular courses and field experiences, and their for-
mal role at the university. Of the nine regular participants in seminar, five were
graduate teaching assistants in their first to fourth years in the program, two were
tenure-track faculty in their seventh and third years in the program respectively,

10 Complicating Coherence 165
and one was an academic professional who worked across several different teacher
education programs including the social studies program featured in this chapter.
Another important feature of self-study work framed by this seminar is the struc-
ture and nature of the program itself. Most teacher educators would find aspects of
the program’s structural coherence (Hammerness, 2006; Tom, 1997)—particularly
the courses and field experiences, and their arrangement—recognizable according
to a conventional pattern familiar to many teacher education programs. An initial
seminar and field experience (ESOC 2450) introduces potential secondary social
studies education to the field. Those admitted to the major via a competitive appli-
cation process then take upper-level social science and history courses in other
academic departments, and finish their program with a one-semester “professional
block” of three course/field experiences (social studies methods, social studies cur-
riculum, practicum and seminar). The final semester of the program consists of
a 12-week full-time student teaching field experience and a companion student
teaching seminar. In structural terms of course and field experiences, this social
studies program looks much like those found in other U.S. schools and colleges of
education.
What likely sets this social studies education program apart from others is the set
of “core themes” and related standards representing the intellectual commitments of
the program. The arrangement of these ideas about teaching and learning in social
studies speaks to the “conceptual coherence” (Hammerness, 2006; Tom, 1997) of
the program. One such theme is rationale-based practice. Beginning in the introduc-
tion to social studies course (ESOC 2450), taken prior to admission to the program,
students make their first attempt to articulate their best thinking on the broader pur-
poses of social studies and what these might mean for both what and how they will
teach (Conklin, 2009). They are encouraged to return to their initial rationales as
they progress through the program. At the end of the program, after completing
student teaching, students are asked to present their rationales as they stand at the
end-point of the program, and as the centerpiece of a comprehensive electronic port-
folio in which they discuss how their rationales are evident in the various domains of
teacher competency addressed in this document. In addition to rationale-based prac-
tice, four other core themes are intended to serve as intellectual lines of connection
across the field experiences and courses of the program—reflective teaching, col-
laborative inquiry, culturally relevant pedagogy, and a conception of good teaching
as “active student engagement in worthwhile learning.”
In this program setting, the seminar participants came together to explore prob-
lems and achievements from their own respective spheres of influence as teacher
educators. In a sense, the seminar itself was a kind of self-study in the ways
we investigated our own work within the program in collaboration with others to
better understand a shared concern—our developing pedagogies of teacher educa-
tion. Another self-study effort was taken up by a subset of seminar participants
to examine both the nature and substance of the dialogue openings created by
our “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998) as social studies teacher educators.
For this study, each of the 12 seminar meetings was audio taped and transcribed.
These transcripts, along with notes taken during the meetings and follow-up
conversations drawn from the seminar’s online discussion forum, provided data

166 T. Dinkelman
subject to analysis framed by a five-part model of “learning to teach in commu-
nity” (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005) adapted to teacher
education.
Drawing primarily from the transcripts of one seminar meeting, the following
illustration provides an example of how self-study research provided a standpoint
for exploring an aspect of teacher education work that shapes the enacted coher-
ence of our program. At issue is the authenticity of voice instructors expect from
preservice teachers in the various course and field experiences across the three
semesters of our program. Authenticity is but one of a number of different threads
of inquiry I might have chosen to highlight from the final hour of this one seminar
meeting. I chose this particular aspect of the conversation because of the special
challenges authenticity and honesty present for enacted coherence within our pro-
gram. Of course, all teacher educators should consider expectations of authenticity
and honesty, both of themselves in their own practice and of the students they teach.
In the teacher education program featured here, however, the structural realities of
2450 (i.e. an introduction to social studies course taken prior to admission to the
program, the initial rationale students write in this course, and a competitive admis-
sions process that heavily weights the blind-review of these rationales) merge with
the conceptual features of the program (i.e. rationale-based practice and the other
core themes) in ways that make student honesty a particularly pressing concern of
enacted coherence.
In this hour, we discussed a story I shared from my own sphere of influence
that semester, the student teaching seminar. The story was about what appeared to
me as a breakthrough moment for a student teacher in the final semester of our
program, a moment that illustrates a principle of the pedagogy of teacher educa-
tion that Loughran describes as “learner consent” (p. 79). As a class we had spent
time unpacking one of the core themes and conceptual anchors of the program—
the notion of good teaching as practice that promotes “active student engagement”
in “worthwhile learning.” Near the conclusion of his student teaching experience,
Geoff confessed he felt like “an outsider” to the program because he did not believe
he thought of “active student engagement” in the ways he believed the program con-
ceptualized the idea. As instructor, I was struck that Geoff waited so late into the
program to share how he felt. At the same time, I was relieved that he finally did
express his concern. The moment raised the question of how honest students feel
they can be in positioning themselves contrary to what they may perceive as the
“party-line” of the program.
In our teacher education seminar, the story provided me an opportunity both to
share a puzzling part of my own practice and to express how I value student honesty.
In my own words:
What was most vibrant and fresh about this for me is that Geoff said, “I felt like I’m not with
the program.” This consent/buy-in thing has been one of my seminar “problems of practice”
extraordinaire, and I try and get at that in so many different ways, pleading for honesty …
[T]he buy-in from Geoff was important for me, and had this moment not popped up, I think
that Geoff could have easily skated through the final three weeks feeling, “I′m not buying
into that program and I made that decision early on in the semester.” It’s staggering to me

10 Complicating Coherence 167
how those moments pop up throughout the semester and how easily they could be missed,
if the discussion hadn’t taken a slight little turn. (TD, Seminar, April 10, 2009)
This excerpt reveals an assumption supporting my view of effective teacher edu-
cation programs. That is, teacher educators in a successful program should strive
to create conditions wherein students feel they can be honest about, and willing to
share, their developing thinking about teaching and learning. Even when honesty
calls one to make the difficult admissions “I don’t know yet what I believe about
the core ideas of the program,” or even “I disagree with the core ideas of this pro-
gram,” I believe a program that takes teacher development seriously must cultivate
the spaces for such disclosures. Again, although I was pleased that Geoff found
himself in such a space, I was concerned that it took until the final 3 weeks of the
program before he voiced this view.
Moments later, Alex, a graduate teaching assistant who was nearing completion
of his second time teaching the introduction to social studies course (ESOC 2450),
expressed that issues of honesty complicate his own pedagogy of teacher education
in his work with students at the very start of our program. He stated quite plainly to
the group, “I don’t know how to teach ESOC 2450.” (AC, Seminar, April 10, 2009).
With reference to the structured four-question rationale assignment embedded in
ESOC 2450 and due at the end of the term, Alex continued,
I don’t know how to teach 2450 …. Because, sometimes, I feel like I’ve got four questions.
I’ve got to prepare them to answer those four questions. And, I feel like they don’t have a
choice in how they answer those four questions because there will be a group of unnamed
others who will be looking at these papers, looking for certain ways, certain writing, and
certain particular ways of answering these four questions that we’ve already set them up to
answer. So, I had a student …they were doing a “line of contention” the other day. We were
going back and forth, and I can’t remember the question, but the whole class went on one
side, and she said, “Well yeah. What did you expect? Didn’t you expect us to all think the
same way?” And then I was like, “Well, what am I doing?” We tried to set up these ways
to think, and I think I’ve tried to give them choice and autonomy in where they go with
this rationale, but to me, it seems forced, at least in 2450 …We’re telling them what it is:
“A good social studies teacher will: 29 standards.” We’re telling them what it is. (AC,
Seminar, April 10, 2009)
The seminar discussion continued with participants weighing in on a variety of con-
cerns prompted by these two revelations shared by instructors teaching the bookend
courses in the program. We considered the risks to authenticity that stem from a
program admissions formula weighted so heavily on a rationale written after a
one-semester introduction to social studies. Numerous participants picked up the
question of whether there are some claims about good teaching in social studies that
are beyond negotiation. Hilary, Daniel, and Brandon contested the idea of indoc-
trination. Both the “core themes” and the other 22 program standards organized
in the program framework were problematized. Joseph troubled whether he should
be more explicit about the program standards in his curriculum course. We also
wondered whether program standards provide a shared language to talk about good
teaching, even if we ourselves do not share unilateral beliefs about their mean-
ing. Questions were posed about whether our program could benefit from a more

168 T. Dinkelman
explicit, public statement about the vision of social studies we promote. Perhaps
then, students would make decisions about signing on under full disclosure.
All of these issues appeared in the discussion, and arguably all provide insights
into the nature of enacted coherence experienced by our students. Many of these
issues relate to the question of the expectations of honesty held by instructors in this
program. An analysis of the transcript of our seminar for conversation more directly
focused on the question itself reveals a number of different voices that speak to the
enacted coherence students experience across the full sweep of the program. The
following provides an illustrative sampling of those voices in the form of “dialogue
clips” or passages from the full conversation.
Mardi: So, is there an aspect of having that class and then having people
espouse what you say in that class in order to get admitted that four
semesters later, or however many semesters later, sets up this dynamic
of “This is what the program wanted. I never really agreed with it,
didn’t work for me, never really believed it.” Is it setting up that
dynamic …?
Brandon: “This is what gets me in here. I’m just going to BS my way to get into
this program and that’s it.” That’s how a lot of them perceive it.
Mardi: It seems like those would be the people who are at the back end hav-
ing all these issues about being resistant and not having “bought in.”
Because I can think about who some of those people are, and I don’t
know that they were people who probably did really grapple with these
ideas meaningfully and start to incorporate them. I think they were
probably people who did what they had to do to get in and then just did
that all the way through, because that was the dynamic that got set up
by how they had to get in. I don’t think that we lost them somewhere
along the way. I bet we just never had them from the beginning.
Todd: I don’t know if this is helpful, but what makes me feel good as an
instructor in [student teaching] seminar, and I think it would be true in
2450, is not that they’re getting an answer that either they buy into
or don’t, but it gets to another core theme, this reflective teaching
idea. Call it reflection or inquiry as a stance. I feel best in seminar
when people demonstrate their questioning, their questions about these
standards …I stress over and over again in e-portfolio night that the
honesty push I’m trying to make here means it’s okay to say, “I don’t
know, I don’t know what I thought.” …Is it possible that we could
admit people into the program whose rationale read like this? “This
next section, democracy, I haven’t figured out yet …We’ve looked at
several different conceptions. The one I’m most drawn to is this, but
it still seems pretty abstract. [Walter] Parker says so on and so forth.
That makes a lot of sense to me. At the same time, I can’t see how that
would play out in the classroom and it still seems abstract. That’s what
my thinking is about democracy and education. Next section.” Would
that person be penalized?

10 Complicating Coherence 169
Daniel: I think it’s interesting to hear you give an example …of a student who
says, “I don’t know.” And then going on to begin explaining that you’re
okay with that, in juxtaposition to your saying, “I feel like there’s cer-
tain answers to these questions that I am going to teach them, or that
I’m supposed to teach them, to get entry into the program.”
Alex: I don’t know. I think terming it a rationale is dishonest at that point.
I think later it’s fine. But, I think terming it a rationale—it’s not. It’s
an admissions document, and I teach it like an admissions document.
I think that’s a big tension that I have in the way that I teach that
class…I just think as an introduction …the way we want them to think
about democracy, and multicultural ed, and power and privilege—it’s
an impact that shatters the way that they’ve conceptualized life, social
studies, teaching …And, I feel like I’m forcing their hand because I
can’t let them give, turn in, this kind of scattered, “I don’t know what
the hell multicultural ed is,” because they have to give you an answer. I
feel like I’m doing a disservice by not giving what I think is the answer.
Brandon: We ask them in the e-portfolio that one of the things they should do
is question these things, and it’s okay not to understand fully what’s
going on. But, at 2450, we can’t expect that …I would love to take in
a student that is questioning of something and still not sure of them-
selves, but when we compare that to another document and somebody
else says, “Here’s what I believe in.” And we don’t know that person,
don’t know what they learned or not, you tend to probably go with
the one that actually argues a position as opposed to one who is still
questioning about it.
Alex: You know, I don’t know why I don’t know things. I know I don’t know
them, but I don’t know why I don’t know them or why things seem
confusing. I’m sure I could come up with something, but if there was
a way for me to tell you why I don’t know something, I’d rather pre-
tend that I know and tell you that I know and see how that flies, at least
in 2450. I know maybe the e-portfolio rationale is a little different …
but that’s a different story. …Part of it is I’m still entering the conver-
sation, both as a graduate assistant and as a teacher educator, because
this wasn’t the discourse in my master’s program. I’m learning that dis-
course, and part of my reason why I’m thinking that there’s this kind
of grand answer is because I’m still learning that answer. I’m not so
sure that I can with confidence tell my students that it’s okay to answer
it [the rationale assignment] with a kind of loose interpretation and be
completely confident that their answer in that manner isn’t going to be
rejected, because there’s a certain discourse that I think is pleasing to
our ears as a program.
Hilary: There are also these inherent contradictions in the course and in the
assignment because I think, Todd, going back to the question you
asked about whether this sort of answer about “I don’t know” would
be acceptable, one of the things that I’ve talked with students in 2450

170 T. Dinkelman
about is what does a rationale mean? What does that word mean? It
means a reason for doing something. “I don’t know” I don’t think is
a reason for doing something. It’s not a basis for action. The whole
assignment, the name of the assignment is “what is your reason for
teaching, what is your reason for action?” So, I guess I think it’s not
acceptable to say “I don’t know” if we’re saying. “This is your ratio-
nale.” And, I think there is also this contradiction of choosing your own
reason when we do have a stated—I mean, I’ve always felt this was a
tension of teaching 2450, too, is that we do have an understanding of
what we think our program thinks is good teaching, and we say that
explicitly to a certain extent.
Todd: In [student teaching] seminar, I don’t say this is a “social justice ori-
ented” seminar. I do say, and I try and repeat this theme over and over
again, what we’re about here is this “collaborative inquiry” and “reflec-
tive teaching,” and now it’s about making sense. Let’s get ourselves in
the space of these 27 standards and cast about, muck it up, stir it up,
think about different ideas, try and make sense of this for yourself in
light of your rationale. Very challenging things to do …. But I don’t
know that we all believe that …Maybe we should re-frame the ratio-
nale assignment to something called “initial castings about regarding
social studies,” and then that will take some of the pressure off it.
Marty: Is it okay to be in a classroom and not know what you’re doing it for?
Todd: I would feel disappointed if you asked those who came through our
program, “Tell us what you think about, say, indoctrination and social
studies,” and they said, “I never thought about it, I don’t know. What
is indoctrination?” That would be only appealing to me because it’s
an honest response. What I would love to see is somebody say “Yeah,
indoctrination is an issue that I’ve struggled with.” …I want them to
struggle with the difference between indoctrination and education. This
is a fundamental expectation I think we should hold in an education
program.
Daniel: I wonder how many of out student teachers exiting the program would
say something to the effect of, “I BSed my way through a portion of
this program or all of the program,” or “These are some things I used
in the rationale, and I think it’s crap. I don’t believe that at all.” I don’t
know if that’s a few students or if that’s a lot. But, it’s also true that I
think just because somebody takes up a language or a way of talking
that we might use in this department, that doesn’t always equate to
indoctrination. It may mean that they actually think that those are good
ideas, you know, using those words. Just because they begin to sort of
take on a certain language doesn’t necessarily mean they’re doing it
just to BS their way through the program. It might mean that there’s
some value in it, not always though.
Joseph: I’ve been sitting here thinking about all of these things that we’ve said,
and as I’ve been thinking, I’ve been mulling over in my head how this

10 Complicating Coherence 171
idea of critique and this idea of saying, “I don’t know,” and this idea
of honesty …And it’s all environmentally contextual. I guess what I
mean by environmentally contextual is I think about how a lot of all of
this stuff is so dependent on the kind of environment we create within
our own classroom space, and I’m really intrigued that he was able to
say that, and I guess feel comfortable saying that because I know one of
the things that I’ve struggled with from the fall semester to this spring
semester and I’ve really, really worked really hard is to try to create
a safe environment where people feel that they can be honest and be
critical, and question, and I think that’s a really key component that I
don’t know how much we’ve talked about so far.
Marty: I’m just thinking about them in the context of their first couple of years
as undergraduates, and they’re choosing between being a journalism
major or a management major. They don’t have to take a stance to be a
management major. Like, they’re not adhering to a philosophy, if that’s
the major that you choose. I think for them, they don’t see education
as a political act or a political decision the way that we think that it is,
and so it’s like this huge transition that they’re totally unprepared for.
They don’t have to make a political decision to be a history major, and
so when they switched over to education, I think it’s going to be the
same as just saying, “I’m going to be a management major.” And then
we don’t think that it is.
Todd: We have 27 standards that give us anchor points. I don’t know that it
gives us a common vision because there’s so much interpretation of
each one of those, and the success of seminar for me is when they can
find out that this framework is not directive, not prescriptive. These
standards are all interpretation.
Alex: They don’t have space for them. In 2450, they don’t have space for
interpretation. I think If I were to teach another course, I think I would
be comfortable with the interpretation, with the okay, find a shade. I
don’t feel like they can find a shade or a mish mash.
In sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious ways, the multiplicity of perspec-
tives apparent in this discussion informed the pedagogies of those who contributed
to the entire range of course and field experiences in this social studies teacher edu-
cation program. Clearly, the coherence of a teacher education program is heavily
influenced by the expectations of honesty, authenticity of discourse, and condi-
tions for engagement that students experience as they make their way through it.
Self-study research provided a method that led us to reveal beliefs about teacher
education, beliefs that previously worked under the surface of course descriptions,
program frameworks, and other artifacts of practice. As we worked together to
explore our developing pedagogies of teacher education, our collaborative self-study
not only provided a space in which we could make previously hidden beliefs and
practices visible, but also led us to record these views, review them through the lens
of learning to teach in community (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford,

172 T. Dinkelman
2005), and consider how they contributed to the experiences made possible by the
whole program.
In this case, self-study research opened up avenues for generating understanding
about the enacted coherence of a program that already had many of the trappings
of coherence in place. Indeed, the social studies teacher education program featured
in this research was developed with considerable attention to both conceptual and
structural coherence. However, the idea of enacted coherence suggests the need to
look beyond the arrangement of courses and signature ideas that give a program
its shape and substance. In the process of looking closely at our pedagogies of
teacher education, we uncovered assumptions we made about the core themes of the
programs that very likely worked against the enacted coherence we seek. Do the core
themes and the other 22 program standards represent answers to the questions of
teaching and learning in social studies, or do they more represent questions, areas of
inquiry that we use to frame our work with those learning to teach in our program?
Collaborative self-study research helped us to understand an important feature of
our work that might have easily remained in the shadows.
Those unconvinced that this example does much to illustrate my argument about
the value of self-study research and its potential to promote program coherence
might respond that conservations about expectations of honesty and authenticity, or
about any other feature of the work of teacher education for that matter, are just
that—conversations. Conversations only influence enacted coherence to the extent
they shape the practices of teacher educators. As well, teacher educators need not
rely on self-study to have these conversations. Both points are well taken. Indeed,
there is a strong current of support for the idea that improvement of practice is a
defining feature of self-study research (LaBoskey, 2004). Some would argue that
self-study research is incomplete until the researchers can answer the question,
“How have you changed?”
My response is that the episode of dialogue presented here represents some-
thing more than mere conversation. Self-study brought intentional and systematic
discipline to the exchange of ideas in this seminar. The result was a deeper appreci-
ation of important assumptions about our practice as teacher educators and more
consideration of what these assumptions mean for the program than might oth-
erwise have been the case had we simply shared conversation in the hallway,
if such a conversation would have happened at all. Although our self-study was
not designed to document the resulting changes in our practices as instructors in
this program, the continued analysis of the transcripts of seminar sessions has
kept the theme of the authenticity of student voice prominent in the thinking
of the instructor/researchers who continue this self-study. Clearly this self-study
stands to generate understandings that might improve program coherence within
our particular program.
Self-study research also might produce knowledge about social studies teacher
education that could serve the field more broadly. Sharing research into the problems
and successes of on-the-ground teacher education creates much-needed openings
for dialogue and critical examination among teacher educators. Turned to ques-
tions about enacted coherence, self-study could play an important role in expanding

10 Complicating Coherence 173
professional conversation beyond descriptive accounts of the structural and concep-
tual features of program reform efforts and toward what preservice students actually
experience as they learn about teaching social studies in our programs. Social stud-
ies teacher education represents a small place on the map of educational research.
Even with a proliferation of self-study research, it is unlikely that the next review
of research on social studies teacher education is likely to reach drastically different
conclusions from preceding reviews (Adler, 1991, 2008; Armento, 1996; Banks &
Parker, 1990). There still will be a lot we do not know about the preparation of new
social studies teachers. Yet self-study research does present a viable, accessible, and
powerful approach to better understanding of teacher education practices where they
matter most—in their enactment. Common sense or not, the argument connecting
self-study research and improved teacher education deserves attention.
References
Adler, S. (1991). The education of social studies teachers. In J. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research
on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 210–221). New York: Macmillan.
Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L. Levstik & C. Tyson (Eds.),
Handbook of research in social studies teaching and learning (pp. 329–351). New York:
Routledge.
Armento, B. (1996). The professional development of social studies educators. In J. Sikula, T.
J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp.
485–502). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Banks, J. A., & Parker, W. C. (1990). Social studies teacher education. In W. R. Houston, M.
Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 674–686). New
York: Macmillan.
Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Rev. ed.).
Albany, NY: SUNY .
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review ,
61(3), 279–310.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Executive summary. In M. Cochran- Smith & K.
Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and
Teacher Education (pp. 1–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2004). Research, practice, and academia in North America. In J.
J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of
self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 451–482). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Conklin, H. (2009). Purposes, possibilities, and complexities of teaching secondary social studies.
In E. E. Heilman (Ed.), Social studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do it
(pp. 38–42). New York: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The
design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K.
Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world. What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Elijah, R. (2004). V oice in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, &
T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education
practices (pp. 247–271). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York:
Teachers College Press.

174 T. Dinkelman
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual analysis. In W. R.
Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.
212–233). New York: Macmillan.
Hamerness, K. (2006). From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teachers College
Record ,108(7), 1241–1265.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop.
In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In J. Sikula,
T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp.
143–170). New York: Macmillan.
Korthagen, F., & Lunenberg, M (2004). Links between self-study and teacher education reform. In
J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 421–449). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Labaree, D. F. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J.
Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of
self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Loughran, J. J. (2004a). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education prac-
tices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Loughran, J. J. (2004b). Learning through self-study: The influence of purpose, participants and
context. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 151–192). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and
learning about teaching . London: Routledge.
Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V . K., & Russell T. (Eds.). (2004). International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Loughran, J, & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2002). Improving teacher education through self-study
practices . London: Routledge-Falmer.
Liston, D. P., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Teacher education and the social conditions of schooling .
New York: Routledge.
Marker, G., & Mehlinger, H. (1992). Social studies. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research
on curriculum (pp. 830–851). New York: Macmillan.
Powell, D., & Hawley, T. S. (2009). Four way street: Curriculum, pedagogy, content, and purpose
to advance the common good. In E. E. Heilman (Ed.), Social studies and diversity education:
What we do and why we do it (pp. 43–46). New York: Routledge.
Ritter, J. K. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from
classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3 (1), 5–22.
Ritter, J. K. (2009). Developing a vision of teacher education: How my classroom teacher
understandings evolved in the university environment. Studying Teacher Education 5 (1),
45–60.
Ritter, J. K., Powell, D. J., & Hawley, T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative self-study
into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2 (3), 341–357.
Ross, E. W. (2001). Social studies teachers and curriculum. In E.W. Ross, (Ed.), The social studies
curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (pp. 3–15). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Ross, E. W. (Ed.) (2006). The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (3rd
ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education . Albany, NY: Sate University of New York
Press.

10 Complicating Coherence 175
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education ,58(1), 36–46.
Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran- Smith & K.
Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and
Teacher Education (pp. 645–736). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chapter 11
I Love It When a Plan Comes Together:
Collaborative Self-Study in Graduate School
as a Space to Reframe Thinking About Social
Studies Teaching and Teacher Education
Todd S. Hawley, Alicia R. Crowe, Katie Anderson Knapp,
Andrew L. Hostetler, Bryan Ashkettle, and Michael Levicky
This chapter explores the development of, and research findings generated from, a
self-study collaborative consisting of four social studies education graduate students
and two social studies education faculty members. Conceived as a way to explore
graduate education as a space for thinking differently about social studies teaching
and learning, each member chose to engage in her/his own self-study on specific
connections between their work as graduate students and classroom teachers. The
collective acted as a place to both support and push members in the planning and
implementation of their studies from inception to public presentation of findings.
This chapter serves three main purposes:
1. To discuss findings from the individual self-studies examining connections
between their experiences as graduate students on their understandings of,
approaches toward, and purpose for teaching social studies.
2. To examine how the individual researchers experienced the collaborative self-
study group as a space to provide support, critical and constructive feedback
regarding research design and data collection, and to push each other’s thinking
about data analysis.
3. To examine the potential for self-study research groups to influence research and
practice in social studies education.
Theoretical Framework
Writing about self-study as a methodology, LaBoskey (2004) highlighted how
researchers typically engage in self-studies “to generate local, situated, provisional
knowledge about teaching” as a way to “trigger further deliberations, explorations,
and change by other educators in other contexts” (p. 1170). Echoing LaBoskey,
T.S. Hawley (B)
Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies (TLC), Kent State University,
404 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA
e-mail: thawley1@kent.edu
177 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_11, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

178 T.S. Hawley et al.
Cole and Knowles (1998) recognized that teachers and teacher educators “engage
in self-study both for their own personal professional development and for broader
purposes of enhanced understanding of teacher education practices, processes,
programs, and contexts” (p. 42). Given this potential, Todd and Alicia realized
the possibility of self-study to provide a powerful structure to facilitate attempts
to reframe our purposes for, and approaches to social studies teaching and learning.
As Berry and Loughran (2005) pointed out, self-study provided a useful methodol-
ogy for our purposes because, “it is through ‘unpacking’ pedagogical experiences
that understanding the complexity of teaching can come to the fore” (p. 173).
Discussing the potential of collaboration to strengthen self-study research, Louie,
Drevdahl, Purdy, and Stackman (2003) argued that collaboration in self-study has
the potential to provide increased support for individual researchers, a chance to
engage in a higher level of discourse and critique, and an increased opportunity
to generate transferable knowledge. Also, promoting the merits of collaboration
in self-study research, Johnston (2006) suggested that self-study groups provide
“a place to learn about doing research, to solve problems that emerge in research,
and to help maintain motivation” (p. 64). Collaborative self-study groups create a
unique opportunity for teachers and teacher educators to push their colleagues to ask
and consider different questions about taken-for-granted assumptions, to examine
their thinking during data analysis, and to help them consider different interpre-
tations of their data (p. 64). Taking these suggestions seriously we sought to use
self-study as a means of improving our practice as teachers and teacher educators
(Dinkelman, 2003; Johnston, 2006).
Building on the collaborative power of self-study research, our initial conceptions
for the self-study collaborative were built on the work of Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s
(2009) conception of inquiry as stance. According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle, the
idea of inquiry as stance developed
Out of the dialectic and synergy of inquiry, knowledge, and practice and from the inten-
tional conceptual blurring of theory and practice, knowing and doing, conceptualizing
and studying, analyzing and acting, researchers and practitioners, and public and local
knowledge. (p. 3)
As teacher educators interested in pursuing the power of self-study research with
social studies graduate students, Alicia and Todd were confident that tapping into
the potential of collaborative, inquiry-based research, could bridge the gap between
university and public school classrooms. We envisioned the self-study collective
as a space to blur the lines between professor and student and between researcher
and practitioner while simultaneously exploring deeper conceptions of self-study as
process and research methodology.
With the goal of positioning our self-study collective in this way, we sought to
engage in a process of “working the dialectic” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s, 2009,
p. x). As theorized by Cochran-Smith and Lytle, “working the dialectic refers to the
reciprocal and recursive relationships of research and practice (or of theorizing and
doing), as well as the dialectic of generating local knowledge of practice while also
making that knowledge accessible outside the local context” (p. x). As a self-study
collective, we designed our group meetings and research discussions to make the

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 179
dialectic visible as part of sharing our research questions, considering the process of
data collection and analysis, and deliberating the meaning of research findings for
our group and for social studies teachers and teacher educators.
Moving from Traditional Classroom Roles into a Research
Collective
In the fall semester of 2008, Alicia taught a graduate-level social studies education
course called Issues and Trends in Social Studies Education . I attended each course
session with the initial goal of meeting the social studies graduate students and to get
a feel for the types of conversations that were taking place at Kent State. Designed to
explore the landscape of research and practice in social studies education, the course
turned out to be much more. The balance of full-time graduate students and full-time
classroom teachers, along with the content and process of the course, created a space
for thoughtful, engaging discussions about theory and practice. Discussions gener-
ally returned to an ongoing give and take regarding the proper role of social studies
research and how it could/should influence the practices of classroom teachers. This
tension became part of the collective conversation as well as an individual source of
tension that set the stage for the individual self-study research projects the graduate
students would pursue the following semester.
As the end of the semester approached, Alicia and Todd began to consider ways
to continue the conversations and to build on the sense of community that was devel-
oping among the members of this group. Ultimately we decided to approach several
of the graduate students regarding their willingness to join us in forming a self-study
research group. Even in Alicia’s initial email to the group, the focus of exploring
the influence of their experience as social studies graduate students was a central
goal. Alicia’s email conveyed how much we had enjoyed the class and served as an
invitation to participate:
Todd and I have thoroughly enjoyed the fall semester course. We have become increasingly
interested in how all of you as new or relatively new social studies grad students and teach-
ers/teacher to be are experiencing grad school and how you are framing and reframing your
thinking (about social studies, teaching, …) and growing (as a teacher, as a scholar, …).
(A. Crowe, email, 11/09/08).
After a flurry of emails, five students initially accepted our invitation, some with
more hesitation than others. Ultimately one of the graduate students, the only student
working on initial licensure withdrew from the group citing a lack of time to commit
to the research. In the end our collective consisted of two university professors, two
full-time graduate students (one working on a Master’s degree and the other on her
Ph.D.), and two full-time teachers (both part-time Ph.D. students).
We met at the end of the fall semester, in December, to frame our work together.
We agreed to meet six times during the spring semester 2009. Our goals were
to learn more about self-study research, to continue our discussions about social
studies research and practice and to develop individual self-study research projects
focusing on connections between graduate school and our thinking about social

180 T.S. Hawley et al.
studies teaching and learning. Each meeting was held at the home of a different
member of the collective and began with a meal that led into our discussions.
Meetings were audio taped and the recordings transcribed. After the last meeting
each of the graduate students worked on data analysis and wrote a research report
focusing on the findings of their individual self-studies. The reports from the grad-
uate students are included below. After the individual research reports the chapter
concludes with a discussion of the themes found across the research reports.
Graduate Student Self-Studies
During the spring 2009 semester, Todd taught a graduate-level social studies seminar
and an undergraduate-level social studies methods course. Alicia was on a sabbati-
cal, which gave her time to help structure and organize the research group. Andy and
Bryan worked as full-time social studies teachers and took graduate-level courses
in the evenings. Katie taught an undergraduate-level social studies course and took
graduate-level courses in the evenings. Mike was a full-time graduate assistant and
took classes in the evenings. This section, and the detailed discussion of the indi-
vidual studies, is designed to present the short reports of the individual self-studies.
Each self-study focused on the participants’ particular areas of interest while the
collaborative aspects maintained attention on the links between their work as grad-
uate students and the continued development of their thinking about social studies
teaching and teacher education. Together these studies explored powerful questions
that are significant and ultimately practical for both teacher educators interested
in expanding the possibilities of graduate education and for teachers struggling to
promote engaging, worthwhile learning in social studies classrooms.
Bryan’s Risk Taking in the Classroom
Context
I have, for the last 5 years, taught College Prep and Advanced Placement (AP)
American Government at Solon High School in Solon, Ohio. The district is
incredibly data and test result driven and the focus on test results has created what
I perceive to be a negative consequence in my instruction that I am very much
uncomfortable with.
During my first year at Solon, I chose to teach in a creative way that brought
meaningful and entertaining content to the students. However, that year I was disap-
pointed with my students’ overall AP Exam scores. At Solon High School, your
scores, along with every other teacher’s scores in all AP subjects are sent out
throughout the district. I was told by the administration, “Do not worry about it,
I am sure you will do better next year.” At that moment, I knew how I was going
to be measured as a teacher at Solon High School. All of the risk taking and exper-
imentation that I had worked so hard to develop throughout my career took a back

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 181
seat to a “drill and kill” mentality of getting students to score well on the AP test.
Through this type of conventional instruction, my scores have steadily improved and
I routinely have the highest scores amongst the AP American Government teachers.
All of this affects my instructional strategies at Solon in what I believe to be
a negative way. I play it safe by relying on teacher-driven instruction and deliver
content by means of the safest strategies for the best test results. The climate of
experimentation of my previous teaching years has declined significantly. I have
become part of an educational system that I despise. A system that relies on stan-
dardized instruction geared toward standardized tests. So, I used the self-study as
an opportunity to become the teacher I once was, and what I want to become again.
That teacher was a “risk taker”.
What is Risk Taking to Me?
The idea of defining risk taking was initially a problematic endeavor. For me, risk
taking involves instruction that is student driven and where students are attempting
to solve real-world problems. I use the word “risk” because of the perceived danger
of changing my instructional methods away from the test-based curriculum of my
AP course. The risk is that such a movement away from the content could lead to
lower test scores. I knew what I did not like about my instruction and had to decide
how I was going to make my teaching powerful again. The teacher-led, content-
driven instruction that I have for too long followed at Solon was not meaningful.
I wanted my students to remember my instruction and my course beyond the AP
test that they would take in May.
As I struggled to figure out what my risk-taking practice might become, the con-
cepts and philosophies that were the most meaningful came from Ochoa-Becker’s
(2007) An Issues-Centered Decision Making Curriculum . Her writing was an affir-
mation to me in the way it challenged social studies teachers to take on real-world
problems. Ochoa-Becker urges the field of social studies to embrace meaningful
content and an approach to learning that encourages students to research and inves-
tigate and then attempt to solve real-world problems. The reason Ochoa-Becker’s
position resonates with me is that, in my experience, far too often, students have
content thrown at them in such a way that they see very little value in the material
other than short-term memorization for test preparation. Looking back on my lesson
plans and my own teaching strategies, I had seen that I, and as a result, my students
had fallen into this same type of routine – students are filled with information and
content that is forgotten after the test. When the students develop solutions to prob-
lems, they begin to live the content. I became resolved to create a classroom that has
a balance of both content- and student-driven investigation.
Self-Study Design
Initially I made a firm commitment to practice this type of “risk-taking” instruc-
tion in 2-day lessons once every 2 weeks. In the end, I attempted five separate
lessons throughout the semester that I believed met the criteria of risk taking in

182 T.S. Hawley et al.
the classroom. I relied on weekly journaling as well as student blogs, and student
surveys as sources of documentation for this study. The data from these sources
made me more cognizant of my own planning and instruction and I was able to
recognize and incorporate “risk-taking” activities better. In addition, I relied on
the students themselves to tell me directly what they thought about my change in
instruction. Through blog posts and surveys, I encouraged the students to express
their opinion on the value of these “risk-taking” lessons. The responses were diverse.
An Example of Risk Taking
Of those five lessons, I believe that the investigation into race relations at Solon
High School was the best example of the instruction I hoped to create. Solon
City Schools currently has a racial breakdown of roughly 13% African-American
and 87% Caucasian. There exists within the school a segregated environment that
I found worthwhile to investigate. Based on my 5 years at the school, issues of race
and race relations often fly under the radar. Race is rarely discussed in either a posi-
tive or negative way. We have not had any incidents in the school that I would see as
a “racial confrontation” and racial language and slurs is no more prevalent in Solon
than in other schools that I have taught in. However, the school’s cafeteria looks like
a lunch counter in 1950s’ Selma, Alabama. This is in no way encouraged by the
staff or mandated through scheduling, but it occurs anyway. Black students, with
few exceptions, eat with black students, while white students eat with white stu-
dents. The hallways are equally racially divided. African-American students tend to
find corners or removed areas of the hallway to congregate, whereas white students
find other areas of the school to talk in between classes. Lastly, with few excep-
tions, students of different races at Solon rarely date or are friends. These practices
are not noticeably encouraged by the school’s faculty or the structure of the school
schedule, but rather occur in a de facto way.
I received permission from the administration, parents, and students to conduct
interviews of students on their own perceptions on race. What transpired from these
interviews was a very candid portrayal of how these students perceived race rela-
tions in the school. The interviews exposed some areas of common ground, as well
as some elements of division. The answers were at times uncomfortable, but always
honest. I organized a 2-day lesson around these interviews. I used these interviews
to spur on discussions in my class by having the students break into small groups.
The groups were divided between students who see the current situation as a prob-
lem versus those students who see race relations in Solon High School as fine just
the way they are. I asked the students to consider the same questions that were
posed to the students in the interview. Those questions focused on what the stu-
dents thought were the reasons for the lack of interracial interaction and dating.
Like the interviews, the small group discussions were both frank and sometimes
uncomfortable with students discussing cultural differences as well as personal and
family prejudices. The students then reported out what they discussed. Students
were encouraged to blog on the discussion and their posts revealed a myriad of
opinions that went well beyond the discussions in class.

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 183
I feel that it is important to mention that no concrete solutions came from the
2-day lesson. There was never a moment that served as an epiphany. However, when
reflecting on my own instruction, that short 2-day lesson was far more meaningful to
me than my traditional, no-risk, test- or standards-driven instruction that I had been
accustomed to. The lesson was memorable because I had students talking about real
issues that affect their lives everyday. Granted, these types of lessons will not further
Solon’s or my own standardized test scores. What it will do, however, is establish
curriculum that has a life outside of the classroom and beyond a standardized test.
Students, hopefully, took away something from those 2 days that helped them reach
a greater level of understanding and empathy for those different from themselves. To
that end, I also think students were involved first hand in that all-important problem-
solving component advocated by Ochoa-Becker (1988). This is what I define as risk
taking in the classroom.
What I Learned
The majority of my students appreciated my decision to change how and what
I teach and found the exercises to be very worthwhile. However, a significant num-
ber of my students thought that such activities were a waste of time. Those students
mentioned that they thought that our instruction time would be better served with
more of a traditional focus on the content. I feel that these students, like me, have
become conditioned by the rigors that Solon demands of standardized content and
tests, and that the negative feelings toward a new strategy could be the result of
being in an unfamiliar place educationally. I have come to realize the tremendous
potential that risk-taking exercises have in making student learning more meaning-
ful. Although my break from traditional methods of teaching has yet to be measured
in the form of data-driven AP test results, personally and professionally I am in
a more comfortable place with my instruction. I have also become a student of
self-study research in that I now realize how journaling, student’s surveys, and peer
reflection can greatly improve my effectiveness as a teacher. So often educators look
elsewhere for the changes needed for professional growth when the answers exist
within us if we are willing to be honest and introspective.
The Collaborative Group
The greatest instrument in informing my research was the group of colleagues that
I met monthly with to discuss our self-study research projects. The group con-
sisted of professors and graduate students from Kent State University. These critical
friends provided encouragement and advice in what directions I should head in order
to become a risk taker in my classroom. I found that having non-confrontational crit-
icism from individuals you respect and trust is vital to the success of my self-study
research. The ability to get outside my own thinking and to hear other educators’
ideas is the driving force in creating meaningful change in my teaching. I will con-
tinue my self-study research next school year and I hope to capitalize on the gains
that I made this past year.

184 T.S. Hawley et al.
Katie’s Complexity and Controversy in a Social Studies
Methods Course
Context
As a social studies education doctoral student with a teaching fellowship, I teach
two courses each semester with preservice undergraduate students. During spring
semester 2009, I taught the Early Childhood Integrated Social Studies Methods
course at Kent State University with 21 undergraduate women once a week for
15 weeks. After having observed my advisor teaching the same course in the fall
semester, I felt somewhat prepared to teach the course. I witnessed the resistance of
the fall semester students to the rather complicated and controversial ideas that the
professor presented.
Throughout my graduate program, I have been pushed to consider the bene-
fits of engaging students in complex historical and democratic thinking. Because
I believe that historical thinking can help students become more active and respon-
sible citizens, I decided it was important for me to engage students in conversations
and activities like my advisor had done. However, I wanted to devise some way to
push the students in their thinking without pushing them into resistance. This topic
was discussed and a warning sounded in a recent issue of Theory and Research
in Social Education (James, 2008). James cites Perry (1981) when she speaks of
“nudging” students in their cognitive positions. Perry warns that, “pushing students
too far beyond the next position may result in their desire to cling more firmly to
their present or in some cases prior position” (As cited in James, p. 195). I began
the semester trying to find the magic bullet that would push students just far enough.
I knew that the only way to find this balance would be to systematically explore my
curricular and instructional decisions and the students’ reactions – and the stage was
set for my self-study.
Self-Study Design
I heeded the advice of Samaras and Freese (2006) when I decided to keep my
research questions open-ended in the beginning phases of my self-study. I began
the study with the question: Do my students change their beliefs about historical
thinking during this course? What do I do to impact those beliefs? As the study
progressed and data were gathered and analyzed, the most interesting findings and
challenges led me to more specific questions that remain related to historical think-
ing: How do my students deal with controversy in the classroom? How are their
notions of citizenship and history becoming more complicated? What role have I
played in their changes in thinking? What have I specifically done in the classroom
that has affected their thinking?
Methods of data collection included journaling, blogging, student surveys,
weekly exit slips, student work, and a culminating piece of art work. I used a diver-
sity of data collection methods in order to triangulate the data and ensure a more
robust vision of the experience. In all honesty, I also was new to self-study and

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 185
was not sure what kind of data would be most valuable during analysis. I therefore
collected every kind of data I imagined might be helpful.
Since this was my first self-study, I followed the suggestions of Samaras and
Freese (2006) regarding data analysis. I read and reread all data, coded for themes,
and identified quotes and examples that supported the themes. I added one more
step to the process; I looked for discrepant data and tried to make sense of those
anomalies.
What I Learned
My findings were somewhat surprising and rather interesting to me. I struggled
with a problem that Loughran (2007) warns about glossing over personal suc-
cesses as many self-study researchers do. It felt odd to consider why things worked,
and I found myself wanting to focus more on what was not working. In order
to create the most detailed landscape of my work, I attempted to balance these
issues.
Theme One: Complicating Thinking
The students’ way of thinking about history and citizenship became significantly
more complicated. The students universally reported this complication and cognitive
dissonance in their exit surveys and final art projects. The increasing understanding
of the “messiness” of engaging in historical thinking was also evident in many of
the lessons they taught in their field placements. The changes in thinking forced me
to examine what lessons and ideas caused the shift. It encouraged me to clarify my
own goals and be more explicit in my decision-making process. I learned that what
I value affected every student, so I must be extremely clear and thoughtful about my
values.
Theme Two: Controversy
Because elementary student teachers are often uncomfortable with controversy
and because controversy is inevitable in engaging in the processes of an histo-
rian (James, 2008), I purposefully set up a safe and critical environment in the
classroom. Although I wasn’t sure if it would work, I encouraged discussion of
controversial issues through a project called “You’ve Got Issues!” As the semester
progressed, students became more comfortable discussing and debating difficult
issues. This was evidenced by a significant change in the survey results and in
their self-reporting in exit slips and class discussions. As the instructor, I wanted
to model an ability to be comfortable with controversy. Teaching students to
examine their feelings about teaching controversial issues forced me to confront
my own insecurities about conflict. I was aware of the power differential in the
classroom, and I had to work to allow students the space to manage their own
conflict.

186 T.S. Hawley et al.
Theme Three: Bias Detection
Students universally reported that the way they viewed history and citizenship (and
for some, even the way they viewed daily life) had shifted. They felt that they were
on a constant hunt to detect bias and uncover hidden assumptions. This theme arose
repeatedly in all of the sources of data, but was particularly poignant in the final art
project. I asked students to draw what they believed social studies was both before
and after the methods course. I was happy to see that the ideas had become much
more complex, but I was concerned with the “flip” that occurred in their think-
ing. Students engaged in what VanSledright (2004) calls “the good-bad dichotomy”
(p. 108). For example, one of the students drew a picture of a happy depiction of
Thanksgiving between Pilgrims and Native Americans for her “before” picture. In
her “after” picture, the scene changed to a frightening rendition of violent explorers
in a graveyard of Native Americans. She understood that the narrative passed down
to her was not accurate, but she immediately vilified Columbus. Her reaction was
“stymied by the dogmatic use of truth-lie dichotomy” (VanSledright, 2004, p. 109).
I was troubled by the fact that although I was able to push students in their think-
ing, I was not able to bring them back to center. This piece of the study will continue
in all of the courses I teach. I need to constantly assess the messages I’m giving
about the “truth” of history and encourage students to be comfortable in the gray
areas of the process of reconstructing history.
The Collaborative Process
Participating in a group of critical friends during this self-study process was a neces-
sary endeavor for me and I learned several things. First, I believe the methods of data
collection I chose, the analysis I conducted, and the reflection in which I engaged
would have been starkly different without my colleagues’ feedback and support. In
a practical sense, the group meetings forced me to be accountable for my study. I
knew I was responsible to the group and that I had to come to our meetings with new
data, questions, and insights. The group provided me with the necessary motivation
to continue my study.
Second, the group, especially the two professors, constantly questioned me dur-
ing the meetings. Although I felt some inner resistance, I eventually found that a
shift in my thinking occurred. I struggled throughout the entire study with the focus
on self. Because I’ve engaged in action research, I wanted to continue to focus on
my students and their learning experiences. I learned, though, in this collaborative
space, that student focus is only half of the equation. I needed to become more
reflective about my choices, my thinking, and my assumptions. Without the careful
questions asked of me, I may have missed the point.
Third, through watching my peers, I was able to “try on” their methods of data
collection and inquiry stance. For instance, one of the members showed us his
journal. I was impressed with the narrative and realized that thoughtful, consis-
tent reflection would probably be helpful to me as well. I started my own journal.
My insightful colleagues were the supportive, challenging catalyst that I needed to
engage in a meaningful self-study.

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 187
Michael’s Creativity and the Social Studies Classroom
To know the truth is to know the self …
–Pete Rock from the album Mecca and the Soul Brother
Context
I am a daredevil, an alchemist, an artist, a list maker, a nomad, a contractor, a
caretaker, a student, a teacher, a researcher, and a practitioner of the social stud-
ies. Quests for answers always seem to evolve into more questions. Failures often
become my phoenix and my successes largely go unknown existing in futures I can
only hope to see. My path is often the road less traveled. I believe this to be the
plight of a Socratic educator. However, after 6 years in the high school classroom
dealing with the politics of schools I sensed my frustrations mounting. I sought
change. I applied for and was granted sabbatical leave and spent the year nearly
completing my master’s degree in curriculum and instruction with a concentration
in social studies education.
As a graduate assistant and full-time student I was fully immersed in the cul-
ture of graduate school. My mind turned like an amusement park carousel with the
constant offering of worthwhile readings and thoughtful conversations with profes-
sors and classmates alike. My mind was reopening. Throughout the beginning years
of my teaching career, I had slowly allowed the toxicity of the profession to erode
my bright, full-color-spectrum thinking into black and white; and as George Lucas
warns in the Star Wars films, thinking in absolutes leads to the dark side (and I
have always endeavored to be more of a Jedi Master as a teacher). The perceived
limitations and obstacles of standards and schools were dissipating and a greater
knowledge base, one that asks powerful questions and considers what is possible,
was emerging in its stead. My pedagogy was growing, as were the tools that I had
at my disposal. It was time to create.
Self-Study Design
Reflecting on my practice through the discipline of self-study, I explored the idea
of creativity becoming a more prominent part of my social studies classroom in
relation to curriculum, materials, lesson planning, classroom instruction, evaluation,
and student input by asking the simple question, “How can I become a more creative
social studies teacher?” To help make sense of this question I attempted to find
research specific to creative social studies teaching and learning. This effort proved
futile so I settled for researching creative teaching and ultimately finding some of
the framework provided by scholar Bob Jeffrey (2006) useful. He describes creative
learning as having four significant parts:
–Relevance . Learning that is meaningful to the immediate needs and interests of
pupils and to the group as a whole. (p. 401)

188 T.S. Hawley et al.
–Ownership of knowledge . The pupil learns for (themselves), not the teacher’s,
examiner’s, or society’s knowledge. Creative learning is internalized and makes a
difference to the pupil’s self. (p. 401)
–Control of learning processes . The pupil is self-motivated, not governed by
extrinsic factors, or purely task-oriented exercises. (p. 401)
–Innovation . Something new is created. A major change has taken place, a new
skill mastered, new insight gained, new understanding realized, new, meaningful
knowledge acquired (p. 401).
Data collection included my brainstorming, idea dumping, stream-of-conscience
writing and journaling, blogging, and the creation of a personal teacher ratio-
nale (likely accomplished with a near permanent cup of lukewarm coffee in
hand). Data analysis consisted of carefully reading and rereading these vari-
ous writings and notes in search of patterns and/or themes and then revisiting
the pieces that were extracted during processing to ensure proper inclusion and
relevance.
What I Learned
My findings reveal a sensible arch from abstract idea conception and infancy to
tangible classroom practice. My self-study process begins with many “what is cre-
atively possible” questions and evolves to become another series of “how can it be
created” logistical concerns before transitioning to near-endless attempts made at
answering these questions and concerns through rationale building and ideas that
better account for purpose in conceiving a creative curriculum.
The concept of a teacher being an artist or “that teaching is a complex art form”
(Grainger, Barnes, & Scofeham, 2004, p. 252) is recurring and prominent. Teachers’
holding the freedom to work democratically toward learning goals alongside their
students, rather than as authoritarians, also emerges. Within my writings, a strong
critique is present of school districts and an educational system that extracts creativ-
ity from education and instead emphasizes rigidness and sterility and views learners
as followers and future cogs in the machine of society rather than as leaders and
independent, creative, critical thinkers.
The pursuit of imaginative, innovative products that demonstrate deeper student
understanding, comprehension, and personal meaning making in learning as well
as considerations for more authentic, non-traditional assessments surfaced in my
writings. Because I did not have a class to interact with and receive feedback from,
I drew on the work of scholars Grainger, Barnes, and Scofeham (2004) who sug-
gest that, “creative teachers make use of their own creativity, not just to interest
and engage the learners, but also to promote new thinking and learning” (p. 252).
As I return to the classroom, I plan to conduct further research on creative teach-
ing by gathering data from student responses and reactions to the shared creative
classroom. I hope to establish and further consider Jeffrey’s (2006) construction
of creative learning and ultimately provide richer perspective for future, interested
parties.

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 189
The Collaborative Process
By participating in vast, profound, provocative dialogues in our courses, at our
monthly meetings and off-campus gatherings, and throughout the process of our
self-study groups’ blog site, my thinking was pushed and refined. My peers served
as a lifeline back to the classroom I had vacated for the year; and their collec-
tive, shared experiences and deft perspectives facilitated my contemplation of what
needed to be present in my own thinking about the social studies environment I
hoped to generate. Our self-study group helped to rein in my thinking when it went
astray and provided necessary boundaries; akin to a kite in a strong wind that would
blow away should someone cease to hold the string. The sharing of their studies
was a constant influence and stimulus that helped to provide valuable connections
within the social studies discipline. Without the group, my study would have likely
devolved into meaningless mental masturbatory writing, but together as an assem-
bly of collaborators we were able to have a structured, conversational social studies
orgy!
Andy’s Bridging Graduate Studies and Teaching Practice
Through Self-Study
Context
As a teacher-learner, I approached this study from the perspective of both a gradu-
ate student in the last half of my first year of a Ph.D. program and a social studies
teacher of 6 years. This inquiry took place both at Kent State University and a
rural/suburban high school classroom with, primarily, eleventh grade students. As
I progressed through the Ph.D. program and continued teaching I became aware
of various aspects of my teaching from professional and pedagogical perspectives
including image, efficacy, instruction, management, the environment in which I
teach and which I create to teach within, and more. As these aspects of my teaching
emerged through study and reflection it made sense for me to engage in a collabora-
tive research group that would push me to recognize connections between graduate
work and my teaching practice to improve my practice and work with others to
improve theirs. In the semester prior to this research I had begun to think more
about the frustrations I experienced as a teacher engaged in the dual roles of sec-
ondary social studies teacher and graduate student. My research questions emerged
out of this sense of duality.
Self-Study Design
In an initial attempt to articulate my questions for this study I shared them on our
self-study group blog as
In what ways does my graduate work affect my teaching practice and thinking as a teacher?
How is this tied to my effectiveness as a classroom teacher and graduate student? Are these

190 T.S. Hawley et al.
roles (teacher/learner) independent of each other in my practice or does improving in one
role result inevitably in improvement in the other? (Blog Post, January 1, 2009)
I approached these questions through inquiry into my rationale for and results of
decision making and behavior in the classroom, pedagogical, and as a teacher-leader
in interaction with colleagues, professional.
Early in this study I was asked what I mean by “effectiveness” as a teacher.
For this study I defined effectiveness as the resulting experience of those involved
as closely aligned with the intentions of the professional or pedagogical decision.
Through this reframing, my own understanding of what I meant in my initial ques-
tions was deepened. This was the first of many collaborative interactions that pushed
my thinking about my practice as a teacher-learner.
Methods of data collection were primarily qualitative including near daily jour-
naling and blogging for documenting and reflecting on my own work as a teacher
and learner, student work, and transcribed self-study group meetings. Journaling
consisted of writing analytically about my own thinking and decision making,
student responses, behaviors, and comments, graduate courses, assignments, assess-
ments, and collegial interactions when these events occurred. Additionally, I posted
one or two times a month in attempts to articulate thoughts about experiences and
receive feedback from participants. I also created a blog for my students’ use as
a place to complete assignments and eventually contribute to my understanding of
their individual and collective experiences with my class.
After discussing various analysis methods with our self-study group I decided
to read and reread my various sources of data. First, I read data and coded themes
and marked the number of times they appear in journaling and blogging. Second,
I coded primarily through the lens of my research questions looking for specific
connections between graduate work and my teaching practice. As these themes and
connections emerged I then began to recognize ways other aspects challenged and
influenced my practice.
What I Learned
Most of my findings within the lens of my research question were not surprising
to me; however, I was very surprised to discover unexpected results of engaging in
collaborative self-study. The influence of self-study and connections between grad-
uate studies and teaching practice are evident in three themes found in this study,
professional influence, pedagogical influence, andself-study influence .
Professional Influence
Professionally, I found 25 references to ways in which graduate school offered
a means to support my choices with a theoretical foundation. The result was an
increased sense of efficacy as a teacher and improved professional image. Evidence
for this influence was found throughout my journal. This evidence includes decreas-
ing frustration with ineffectiveness as a member of Faculty Advisory and Rigor &

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 191
Relevance committees at my high school. A major event discussed in the journal
was an experience with a corporation who provided our school with an economics
curriculum package. It was evident throughout the pages of my journal that meetings
with this company, my department head, a colleague, and my administration led to
an end result of not being pressured to implement aspects of the program with which
I disagreed (pp. 63–68). “[The issue is] still looming but three others [department
head, curriculum director, principal] are trying to help resolve the issue, the curricu-
lum director offered to pay the $1,600 so we did not have to use their implementation
standards” (Journal Entry, March, 25, 2009).
Pedagogical Influence
Pedagogically, graduate school seemed to influence my practice in a variety of
ways, with instructional methods andstudent response being significant sub-themes.
Instructionally, I found that creating a blog for my students and its implementa-
tion were a direct result of the use of blogs in both fall and spring semesters as a
graduate student. This also led me to a fascinating realization about my students’
responses as an indication of their experience with my class. Students, with a fair
degree of honesty, commented on their expectations and engagement in the class-
room. Through their blog posts and class discussion I discovered that many of my
students expected teacher-centered instruction and a more structured authoritarian
environment in the classroom. “I posed five questions phrased to be less ‘fact-
finding’ and more for understanding what they read, making inferences based on
reading and thinking critically about the reading and our ‘law problem’, I had a
chance to have great conversations with a lot of students today” (Journal Entry,
January 26, 2009). These conversations were often questions and comments like
the following: “Why are we doing this?” “What’s the point of the blog?” and
“These answers aren’t in the reading!” They frequently commented on their discom-
fort with the more student-centered, constructivist, learning environment that I had
worked to create as a direct result of graduate coursework. This discovery was unex-
pected and has led to preparation for actively discussing this challenge with students
next year.
Influence of Self-Study
Unexpectedly, the act of engaging in self-study has, in and of itself, led to connec-
tions between graduate work and my teaching practice. My initial worries about
this, evidenced in the following journal entry:
I have already noticed that there are many decisions and choices I make daily that are
directly connected to graduate work. I wonder how much of this is part of a kind of self-
fulfilling phenomena? How has my selection of what to write about for that day been
impacted by my knowledge of doing this study, and beyond that am I making specific deci-
sions throughout the day knowing that they would tie in nicely to this study? Is this a bad
or good thing? (Journal Entry, January 25, 2009)

192 T.S. Hawley et al.
I now embrace this as an unexpected and inherent benefit of the power of self-study
to push us to improve our practice and through sharing work to spread and improve
the practice of others.
Collaborative Process
The influence of the group on my work was twofold. First, participants pushed my
thinking by working to reframe my thoughts, data, and experiences. As we would
report out in monthly meetings or offer comments on the blog, participants would
frequently ask questions about our thinking or perspective. This push was a neces-
sary aspect of our research unattainable as individuals who, without this reframing,
would be left to our unchecked assumptions and misperceptions. For example, as I
was framing my initial research questions a participant responded to my blog post
asking what I meant by “effectiveness” as a teacher. The question helped me to
reframe what I intended to question and as a result helped to shape my work and
learning throughout the project.
Secondly, the group worked to keep me accountable to my commitment. The
decision to journal on a near daily basis and post to the blog regularly were difficult
commitments while teaching full time and taking two graduate courses. Looking
forward to our monthly meetings worked to hold me accountable for my voluntary
commitment. The group has grown into a true professional learning community as
we have worked and learned together about self-study, social education, and each
other’s experiences.
Discussion
Initially designed to extend conversations sparked in a graduate-level social stud-
ies course, our self-study research group evolved, some might even say mutated,
into a collective of teachers and teacher educators committed to “working the
dialectic” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. x) and blurring the lines between the-
ory, research, and practice. With a strong focus on exploring connections between
the participants’ experiences as social studies graduate students learning as part
of a program drawing heavily on the theoretical and epistemological aspects of
self-study as both a process and research method. Together we experienced the
power and potential of Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) vision of inquiry as
stance.
Although each of the participants chose different research questions and had dif-
ferent individual goals for their self-study research, three common themes emerged
from their research reports. The three themes are (a) a desire to promote student
engagement; (b) an increased sense of professionalism; and (c) an appreciation for
the power of collaborative self-study research. Together these themes demonstrate
the potential of integrating self-study as a process and research methodology with
graduate education in social studies.

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 193
Promoting Student Engagement
The first theme that emerged from the individual studies was the desire to develop
new ways to promote student engagement. This theme was consistent, although
in different ways, across each of the four studies. Bryan’s study was designed to
examine his ability to take risks as a teacher. In his case, risk taking was teaching
that went beyond teaching to the test, and promoted student engagement through
decision making and problem solving. Together these goals were designed to pro-
mote engagement as part of preparing students for the Advanced Placement exam.
Instead of pouring the information into his student’s heads, Bryan wanted to pro-
mote engagement as a means to increasing student interest to go beyond simply
memorizing the content. Like Bryan in many ways, Mike’s study was designed to
examine his ability to become more of a creative teacher while studying full-time as
a graduate student. Creativity for Mike was not simply an attempt to have more fun
as a teacher. Instead, the search for creative teaching methods and ideas focused on
developing ways to increase his students’ engagement with social studies content.
Katie’s study was designed to investigate her ability to simultaneously push her
students’ conceptions of social studies and their ability to consider controversial
issues. As part of her attempts to promote a more critical perspective toward social
studies teaching and learning, Katie chose to explore her ability to engage her stu-
dents without pushing them away or turning them off to her goals. Andy pushed
himself to be a more effective teacher. In doing so he learned that he wanted to
focus more on his methods and the types of responses he received from his students.
Ultimately his goal was to create lessons that were engaging in ways that pushed
students to think and work in new ways.
Increased Sense of Professionalism
Inherent in each of the four research reports is a connection between the experience
of participating in the self-study research projects and the development of a deeper
sense of self as a professional social studies teacher. For Katie, the process began as
an attempt to teach a class once taught by her mentor. While initially worried that
she would not have the ability to teach as powerfully as her mentor, and resistant
to the idea that she was also a good teacher, Katie’s experience illuminated her
developing sense of self as a professional social studies teacher educator. In her
case, she learned that she was capable of teaching a course designed to challenge
her students’ conceptions of social studies and of their ability to teach controversial
issues.
In similar ways, Bryan and Andy found the process of studying their own prac-
tice as classroom teachers to be equally rewarding regarding their sense of self as
professional social studies teachers. Bryan’s attempt to take risks helped him return
to a vision of himself as a creative, engaging teacher. As a professional social stud-
ies teacher, Bryan could now envision himself taking risks within the data-driven
context of his high school without feeling like he had sold out to the pressures of his

194 T.S. Hawley et al.
administration. Andy, like Bryan, sought to become an effective teacher capable of
doing more than preparing students to pass tests. In Andy’s case, he also found the
experience of participating in the self-study research process to be liberating pro-
fessionally. An unexpected result for Andy was his ability to hold firm to his vision
of powerful social studies teaching and learning and to provide a solid rationale for
his decision making.
Functioning without any students to try out his newly developed ideas about
creative teaching, Mike leaned on the group for feedback and advice. Despite
the lack of interaction with students and the ability to self-assess, Mike’s outlook
on his potential to become more professional improved throughout his research
process. The ability to present ideas to the group and get feedback from both
professors and classroom teachers enabled Mike to develop a sense of self that
was both more professional and more creative – not something Mike felt when
he began the process. This alone speaks to the power of collaborative self-study
to enhance the ability of social studies teachers to develop a deeper sense of self
as professionals capable of generating local knowledge that can speak to a larger
audience.
The Power of Collaborative Self-Study
Without hesitation all of the participants spoke to the power of collaborative self-
study research, both as a means for increasing their ability to imagine possibilities
for their research studies and in terms of their ability to analyze data and discuss
their findings. Each participant made strong connections with the group as a source
of motivation and support. Mike, Katie, and Andy each specifically discussed how
the process of collaboration served as a source of inspiration, accountability, and
motivation. As part of her increased motivation, Katie discussed her ability to “try
on” new methods and to consider approaches to data collection and analysis that her
colleagues were using. For Mike, the collaborative pushed his thinking and man-
aged to pull him back when his thinking started to stray from his intended goals of
developing creative lesson plans and served as a means of reconnecting him to the
classroom he will inhabit next year.
As a whole, the three themes make visible the influence of the self-study col-
laborative on the thinking of four social studies graduate students who explicitly
sought to understand their teaching more deeply. Together the themes demonstrate
the potential for social studies teachers to utilize self-study research methods to
explore and influence their vision of good social studies teaching and learning.
This study demonstrates the potential for other teachers to create research collec-
tives to develop a commitment to increasing student engagement, the ability for the
process of conducting self-study research to improve a teacher’s sense of self as a
professional, and the power of becoming part of a collaborative research community.
These are not small feats. Collaborative self-study for social studies teachers clearly
has the potential to improve both teaching and learning in social studies classrooms
and graduate education in social studies teacher education programs. It is clear that

11 I Love It When a Plan Comes Together 195
through this collaborative process we were able to blur the lines between research
and practice, knower and known, and teacher and learner.
Conclusion
Exploring graduate education as a place for teachers to reflect upon and reframe
their practice is an under-explored and under-theorized aspect of social studies
teacher education. At the same time, self-study is gaining momentum as social
studies teachers and teacher educators take seriously Dinkelman’s (2003) vision of
self-study as “a means to promote reflective thinking and as a substantive end of
teacher education in its own right” (p. 7). Together these studies provide insight into
the work of graduate students and teacher educators working to improve their prac-
tice, to push students to think differently without pushing them away, to develop
stronger rationales for their work, to become more creative, to take risks, and to
make sense of the process of collaborative self-study as an extension of, and a way
to, significantly improve graduate education.
We believe that these are noble goals and hope to open up a larger conversa-
tion regarding the potential for collaborative self-study groups to develop as spaces
for teachers and teacher educators to harness the power of collaborative inquiry
as they engage in the complex work of examining their own practice as a means
of improving teaching and learning in their classrooms. We hope that our work
might encourage social studies teacher educators to create opportunities for grad-
uate students to engage in collaborative self-study research as part of enacting
what Cochran-Smith (2005) calls an “‘inquiry stance’ on practice, by treating their
own work as sites for systematic and intentional inquiry and their own and others’
research as generative of new possibilities” (p. 8). By working the dialectic, social
studies teacher educators, graduate students, and classroom teachers can blur the
lines that often separate their worlds and hopefully make social studies research
more meaningful for teachers and for students.
References
Berry, A., & Loughran, J. J. (2005). Teaching about teaching: The role of self-study. In C. Mitchell,
S. Weber, & K. O’Reilly-Scanlon (Eds.), Just who do we think we are? Methodologies for
autobiography and self-study in teaching (pp. 168–180). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse. Educational
Researcher, 34 (7), 3–17.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, A. L., Knowles, J. G. (1998). Reforming teacher education through self-study. In A. L. Cole,
R. Elijah, & J. G. Knowles (Eds.), The heart of the matter: Teacher educators and teacher
education reform (pp. 41–54). San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting
reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education ,54(1), 6–18.
Grainger, T., Barnes, J., & Scoffham, S. (2004). A creative cocktail: Creative teaching in initial
teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30 (3), 243–253.

196 T.S. Hawley et al.
James, J. H. (2008). Teachers as protectors: Making sense of preservice teachers’ resistance to
interpretation in elementary history teaching. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36 (3),
172–205.
Jeffrey, B. (2006). Creative teaching and learning: toward a common discourse and practice.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 36 (3), 399–414.
Johnston, M. (2006). The lamp and the mirror: Action research and self studies in the social studies.
In K. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in social studies education: Contemporary issues and
perspectives (pp. 57–83). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2004). Afterword. Moving the methodology of self-study research and practice
forward: Challenges and opportunities. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, &
T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education
practices (pp. 1169–1184). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Loughran, J. J. (2007). A history and context of self-study in teaching and teacher education prac-
tices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Louie, B. Y ., Drevdahl, D., Purdy, J. M., & Stackman, R. W. (2003). Advancing the scholarship of
teaching through collaborative self-study. Journal of Higher Education ,74(2), 150–171.
Ochoa-Becker, A. (2007). Democratic education for social studies: An issues-centered decision
making curriculum. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-Study of teaching practices . New York: Peter Lang.
VanSledright, B. A. (2004). What does it mean to think historically …and how do you teach it?
Social Education, 68 (3), 230–233.

Chapter 12
Looking Across and Moving Forward: Shared
Connections and Future Questions
Alicia R. Crowe
The examples within this book provide several examples of how self-study can help
advance the work of social studies educators whether through intimate personal
journeys into your own family history (Farr Darling) or through a group exploring
many individual avenues while supporting and pushing one another along the way
(Hawley, Crowe, Knapp, Hostetler, Ashkettle, and Levicky). I offer in this conclud-
ing chapter my interpretations of what is present and what I take away from this
group of teacher scholars. To do this, I open with an overview of two select themes
that emerged across the examples of studies presented in this book. This is followed
by a brief summary of some of the ways I see these chapters relating to one another.
I then share my thoughts on the two questions I posed in the introduction based on
what I see in these chapters: What can self-study do to advance social studies edu-
cation? And, how can social studies focused self-studies add to larger conversations
in self-study about teacher education? I conclude with a sampling of questions that
emerged for me from reading the pieces included in this book.
Themes Across the Works
To start the conversation, a snapshot of the words written by each author might be an
interesting view for readers. Image 1 on the next page is a word cloud of the 75 most
commonly used words across the works presented in Chapters 2–11 (the chapters
that represent studies).1The size of the words in the image reflects the number of
times the word appears relative to the rest of the words in the group.
A.R. Crowe (B)
Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies (TLC), Kent State University,
404 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA
e-mail: acrowe@kent.edu
1Common words, number words, and numbers were removed. These included a, the, an, also, may,
although, however, like, these, those, the written numbers one through twelve, and the written out
ordinals first through fifth. I also removed names of participants or the authors.
197 A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology , Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9_12, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010

198 A.R. Crowe
Image 1 Word Cloud created in Wordle ( www.wordle.net ) of the body of Chapters 2–11
From this quick snapshot, a reader begins to get a sense of what is valued
in these works as well as the variation in the ways the authors focus their self-
studies. Research ,inquiry ,reflection/reflective , and thinking appear. These terms
begin to give a sense of the deliberate and focused nature of self-study. Words
like teacher/teaching ,students , and learning add another dimension. They show
the emphasis on this essential relationship. Words such as democratic ,democracy ,

12 Looking Across and Moving Forward 199
andcitizenship appear as well. These terms give the inquiry and thinking about
relationships and processes a purpose.
After the image, I present two of the themes I saw throughout the works in this
book: understanding and improvement – with a democratic twist and opening up the
messiness of teaching and teacher education. I hope that these are useful and that
you also saw other themes that are meaningful to you.
Understanding and Improvement – with a Democratic Twist
Across the chapters a common sense of the value of understanding yourself, your
teaching, or your program to improve it emerges. Since improvement of practice is a
core purpose of self-study it would be surprising to not see this theme. Each chapter
approaches this improvement or growth in different ways, but the notion of learning
and growing connects them all. In social studies, the common theme of demo-
cratic education, gives the understanding and improvement embedded in self-studies
a clear purpose especially tied to the nature of our subject matter background –
becoming a better democratic educator.
As I read and re-read the chapters I continue to find new ways that they focus on,
value, and model democratic education. In some of the pieces the focus on demo-
cratic education is broad and in others it is highly focused on a specific value or
skill needed for a democracy or democratic living. Powell presents an argument
about the strong connection between a healthy democracy, teaching for democratic
education, and reflective thinking and the role self-study can play in helping teach-
ers and teacher educators to become better democratic educators. Ritter’s study
is about his exploration of his attempts to model democratic teaching. Hostetler’s
study gives readers insight into a teacher trying to teach in more democratic ways
in action. Trout discusses ways in which she enacted caring and in doing so how
she found she did not push her democratic goals as much as she would have liked.
Farr Darling’s exploration of connections between her and her grandmother’s jour-
neys include a focus on Farr Darling’s democratic values as well as her desire to
have classrooms that reflect these values. Through all of these, a broad focus on the
democratic project comes through clearly.
In other pieces this focus on democratic education manifests itself through a
focus on teaching about or for the understanding of diversity. Lang’s and Tudball’s
studies are solidly focused on studying their teaching so that their students become
teachers who teach in ways that reflect a complex and deep understanding of diver-
sity. And, although Trout did not explicitly set out to study diversity (she started out
with a much more broad focus on caring and democratic education), it was clear
that this was one of her values as a social studies educator. In the end, her self-study
showed how she grappled with bringing ideas of diversity, equality, and justice into
her practice.
In other pieces democratic ideals in the form of discussion and dialogue are
emphasized. Hawley shares in his study his strong commitment to “creating a
space for students to openly engage in democratic dialogue” (pg. 63–64). His study

200 A.R. Crowe
examined this value (a part of his rationale) in action. The collaborative works of
Dinkelman and Hawley, Crowe, Knapp, Hostetler, Ashkettle, and Levicky embody
this ideal of democratic dialogue. Dinkelman’s shows us faculty and doctoral stu-
dents coming together to deliberate issues within their teaching lives to more fully
understand and engage in better practices as teachers. In the piece by Hawley et al.,
we see a group brought together by shared interests in the teaching and learning of
social studies. The members of the collaborative group valued the experiences and
knowledge of each other and engaged in discussions that pushed each of them to
consider new ideas. In this, they participated in a deliberative, democratic space.
Opening up the Messiness of Teaching and Teacher Education
Teaching is definitely untidy. For many of us, this untidiness (also complexity, ambi-
guity, and messiness) is part of the excitement of teaching. It is the nature of the
endeavor itself that helps explain why many forms of research have yet to tap into
the inner workings of social studies teaching and especially teacher education. We
have little deep and rich public knowledge about social studies teacher education. As
Dinkelman and I shared earlier (Chapter 1), looking into the mysteries of teaching
practice may be one of the ways that self-study can benefit social studies education.
Many of the studies contained within this book help us look into the teaching prac-
tices of social studies teachers and teacher educators. Each of the studies reveals, in
its own ways, the messiness of teaching social studies whether teaching children or
adults who will then teach children.
Hawley’s study of his rationale-in-action in his social studies teacher education
classes (preservice and in-service) furnishes a look into how he saw his rationale
playing out (or not playing out) in his interactions with students. His self-study helps
him become more deliberate in his teaching and his public display of this through
the self-study genre allows other teacher educators an inside view into this process.
Ritter’s chapter shows us how he struggled to model democratic education through
his self-study. His descriptions of what he did, how he communicated with his stu-
dents, and what he saw upon analyzing his data reveals some of the complexities
involved in teaching future democratic educators. Hostetler’s chapter, like Hawley’s
and Ritter’s reveals the inner workings of a social studies educator but this time,
a high school level teacher and graduate student, not a teacher educator. His piece
reveals his journey of learning about and changing his own teaching in a complex
process where the method of study (self-study) became the tool that helped facilitate
the changes in his practice that he wished to happen. His study also gives teacher
educators insight into the thinking of an in-service teacher and graduate student,
which could help us greatly in thinking about how to teach such students.
Lang, Tudball, and Trout help us look into the complexities of social studies
teacher education as well, but they provide a slightly different view into the messi-
ness of teacher education. These authors include the students’ voices as well as their
own. Lang’s descriptions lay out for us what her students were thinking about diver-
sity and then how she took what they were writing to her and what she saw them

12 Looking Across and Moving Forward 201
do in their teaching and change her practice. Tudball’s writing reveals some of her
decision making struggles up close as well. We see how her students responded
to certain aspects of her curriculum and teaching and how she learned from this
and made changes. These examples help other teacher educators begin to see how
she and her students were thinking about the internationalization of her curriculum
and teaching as well as how she came to change because of it. Trout details sev-
eral of her interactions with one of her student teachers along with her thinking and
actions related to these encounters. Her account allows us to see some of the delicate
interplay between a teacher educator wanting to promote certain ideals about good
teaching and her student teacher who is trying to learn to teach.
Dinkelman and Hawley, Crowe, Knapp, Hostetler, Ashkettle, and Levicky pro-
vide us yet another view into teacher education. Dinkelman’s chapter shows the
power of self-study to facilitate complicated conversations within teacher educa-
tion. His piece simultaneously shows us how self-study can help members of a
program consider their program together while showing the public what that process
looks like. Through the discipline of self-study, he and his colleagues were able to
engage in conversations, reveal assumptions, and examine experiences that other-
wise might have gone untouched. These conversations highlight important work in
teacher education and the facilitation of such conversations along with the documen-
tation and analysis of them could benefit all teacher educators as they plan and enact
their own programs. Hawley et al. show us another way to engage in collaborative
self-study. Their chapter, in several voices, exemplifies how social studies teach-
ers in graduate school can use self-study to break down walls between theory and
practice.
Farr Darling gives us yet another view. Her work helps to show some of the ways
our personal histories influence who we are as teachers and who we become as
teacher educators. Her self-study journey brought forward details and connections
that were not as explicit or clear when she began. Once this journey begins, deeper
understanding of who we are occurs. This increased understanding of who we are
as teachers can help us be clearer about what we value and what we want to teach.
Together, these studies capture a rich picture of social studies teaching and teacher
education practices and begin to show the potential of self-study for researching
social studies education from the inside.
Building Connections Across the Works
As you read the chapters, you likely began to see connections between and among
authors, topics, and experiences. I would like to share with you a few select
connections as examples of how these works complement and relate to one another.
In the first chapter of this book, “Self-Study and Social Studies: Framing the
Conversation,” Dinkelman and I shared three ways in which the two fields, social
studies education and self-study, share a common history and interests: a history of
discussion, debate, and dialogue over the definition of the field itself, a commitment

202 A.R. Crowe
to equity and social justice, and a long history of members holding a high regard
and deep connection to John Dewey (especially his ideas about reflective think-
ing). Chapters 5 (Lang), 7 (Tudball), and 8 (Trout), reflect a stated commitment to
issues of social justice, diversity, and equity. The connections to Dewey are explicit
in the works of Powell (Chapter 2), Farr Darling (Chapter 3), and Ritter (Chapter
6). And, the strong influence of reflective thinking is present across all chapters.
For example, Hawley’s study (Chapter 4) and Hostetler’s study (Chapter 9) pro-
vide examples of a teacher educator and a teacher, respectively, studying their own
practice to further understand their own practice. Their two chapters along with the
others that report studies offer concrete examples of self-study as a deliberate and
systematic method to engage in reflective thinking, aligning intention with action,
and developing knowledge from experience.
Beyond the connections the two fields share, we also proposed that self-study
is one means by which social studies education can reach its goal of improved
practice. Specifically, we proposed that self-study can help us look into the mystery
of the social studies teacher education process to expose and begin to understand the
messiness of these teaching and learning processes as well as improve social stud-
ies teacher education. Hawley (Chapter 4), Lang, (Chapter 5), Ritter (Chapter 6),
Tudball (7), and Trout (Chapter 8) offer good examples of self-study helping us see
into the “mystery” of social studies teacher education practices. Dinkelman’s chap-
ter (Chapter 10) helps provide an example of how a program whose members adopt a
self-study stance and engage in collaborative self-study can both reveal more about
the teacher education process and improve their program. We also offer that self-
study can bring a different type of community to social studies education, one that
adds to the strength we already have as a field. Hawley, Crowe, Knapp, Hostetler,
Ashkettle, and Levicky’s chapter (Chapter 11) shares an example of a collabora-
tive self-study and shows one such community. We also wrote that self-study is for
everyone, not just teacher educators. In this assertion we remained cautious because
we understand the constraints teachers in pre-K–12 schools often feel. Hostetler’s
study (Chapter 9) affords readers a glimpse into self-study as a part of the life of a
current high school social studies teacher.
There are many ways that Powell’s arguments in “Join or Die” (Chapter 2) related
to other works in this volume. I chose to highlight one here. As Powell presents an
argument for the power of self-study in social studies, he asserts that self-study can
be a disciplined and systematic way for social studies teachers and teacher educators
to live the ideas of Dewey, pragmatism, and reflective thinking/teaching and to, in
the end, teach in ways that more strongly support and nurture democratic ways
of living. Through several of the examples (Chapter 5–9, 11) represented in other
chapters, we see parts or all of Powell’s argument come to life. As two examples,
Trout’s chapter (Chapter 8) is an example of a teacher educator struggling with just
this. Her self-study reveals her attempts to balance her own positions with where
the preservice teacher is in his development while both modeling and encouraging
reflective thinking. Hostetler’s study (Chapter 9) shows another example. His self-
study helped him explore his beliefs and intentions and bring these in line with his
actions as a social studies teacher.

12 Looking Across and Moving Forward 203
Ritter shares a similar argument to Powell’s: “It is important for social studies
teachers interested in democratic citizenship to be mindful of their decisions and
actions in the classroom” (p. 88). Many of the studies in this book are examples of
this mindfulness. Lang’s work, as seen through her study of her work with preser-
vice teachers can be classified as mindful. So can Tudball’s work as seen through
her self-study. Both authors give us great depth of detail on their decision making
or mindfulness. The connections between what they experienced, through student
work or interviews and through interactions in class or observations, and what they
then did in practice were clear and explicit. These teacher educators were deliberate
and thoughtful in their practice, and the self-study process enabled them to be this
way. Hawley’s self-study of his enactment of his rationale in his teaching is another
example of what a teacher educator can learn about his practice being focused on
his decisions and actions.
Farr Darling’s study provides an example of a way to engage in self-study to
gain a deeper understanding of who we are and what we value. Farr Darling’s piece
also reminds me of two areas. First, it reminds me of a strand of self-study that
focuses on learning more about your self by examining personal history in vari-
ous contexts (e.g., collaboratively, historically) (Samaras, Hicks, & Garvey Berger,
2007). Personal history self-study in various forms adds richness to our understand-
ings of ourselves and our actions as teachers/teacher educators. As Samaras et al.
share, “personal history self-study researchers are providing support for the notion
that who we are as people, affects who we are as teachers and consequently our
students’ learning” (p. 906). Farr Darling’s piece is an example of what this might
look like as a social studies educator. This process connects well to Hawley’s dis-
cussions of rationale-based social studies teaching and teacher education. A new
teacher educator might begin with a journey like Farr Darling’s; use this to begin to
articulate a rationale, and then move into a study of that rationale in practice, like
Hawley.
The second area that Farr Darling pushed me to consider is the wealth of literature
on teacher beliefs. Many have written about teacher beliefs in studies or have pro-
vided reviews of multiple studies (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996 are
often cited sources when discussing teacher beliefs). It is fairly well accepted that
beliefs influence teacher’s actions and learning (Kagan, 1992; Richardson, 1996).
Interest in teacher beliefs began in the 1970s and persisted throughout the 1980s and
1990s (Richardson, 1996). Hostetler’s study gives us an inside look at a teacher’s
beliefs and practices in action. But, what about the beliefs of teacher educators
or social studies teacher educators in particular? Farr Darling’s historical approach
could be a method for articulating, examining, and understanding one’s beliefs.
Ritter mentions in his chapter that intention for him did not always translate
into action. As he explains there were several instances where, “I struggled to live
my values in my practice as a social studies teacher educator” (p. 99). Hostetler’s
study also brings this into focus. In the end, his study is both about studying and
facilitating the process of bringing his intentions inline with his actions. Trout’s
self-study reveals some of the tension in teaching with multiple values. Although
she began with the intent of examining how she practiced an ethic of care in her

204 A.R. Crowe
work as a supervisor, she soon found that she was actually trying to balance this
ethic of care while promoting democratic ideals.
What Can Self-Study Do to Advance Social Studies Education?
Looking only to the studies in this book, I see at least four ways that self-study
can help advance social studies education. First, self-study can help us, social stud-
ies teachers at all levels, be more mindful of our actions, beliefs, and practices. As
already discussed, this is clear across many of the studies. Second, self-study as dis-
ciplined inquiry can help each of us become scholars of our own practice while also
contributing to a developing knowledge base of what it means to teach social stud-
ies and to teach social studies teachers. Third, self-study can help a wider audience
of social studies teachers and teacher educators (beyond those who come to CUFA
each year) to become rejuvenated and energized. Many of the studies within this
book show evidence of a teacher gaining a renewed sense of purpose, enjoyment, or
agency. Fourth, self-study can help build networks of teachers and teacher educators
that encourage and support research about practice to improve practice.
How Can Social Studies Focused Self-Studies Add to Larger
Conversations in Self-Study About Teacher Education?
Engaging in ongoing self-study research and writing with Amanda Berry (Berry &
Crowe, 2006, 2009; Crowe & Berry, 2007) we have noticed that we rarely talk about
the subject matter aspects of our teaching of teachers (unlike me, she is a biology
teacher educator). We have talked about this before but it has not become central
to our self-study work. Across our self-study work we have had rich conversations
about broad, “big picture” concepts and interests that cross subject matter lines. This
work has been interesting, invigorating, and inspiring even. This is typical in self-
study. But, what might it do for us, or for self-study to also have conversations that
bring the uniqueness of the subject matter disciplines that we prepare our prospec-
tive teachers to teach to the forefront. The chapters in this book present arguments
for or provide specific examples of self-study being used to study not just teaching
and teacher education practices but specifically social studies education teaching
and teacher education practices. This is unique and important.
Looking across the ideas shared in this book, I see at least two ways that bring-
ing the subject, social studies in this case, forward in self-study work can contribute
to self-study conversations about teacher education. First, like the focus on general
aspects of teacher education in self-study helped members of the self-study commu-
nity learn a great deal from each other about how to teach, a subject matter focus
can deepen our understanding of what is shared across disciplines. Social studies
education self-studies, self-studies that take under study fundamental concepts of
our field (e.g., social justice, diversity, democratic teaching) can add a great deal

12 Looking Across and Moving Forward 205
to the self-study community. Social justice is a long-standing part of social studies
education and can be a powerful focus for self-studies. In the examples presented
in this book, Hostetler points to this in reflecting on his experience with self-study,
Lang’s study exemplifies this, and although Trout did not begin her self-study with
an intent to infuse issues of diversity or equity, her social studies background made
it surface in her experience with her student teacher. Although social justice is an
underlying theme in self-study (LaBoskey, 2007), it is a focus that is not as strong in
the self-study literature thus far as it could be (Griffiths, Bass, Johnston, & Perselli,
2007). Griffith, Bass, Johnston, and Perselli suggest that self-study researchers may
be concerned about “saying the wrong thing” or dealing with something that is so
“hard and stomach churning.” A field like social studies that is already comfortable
with grappling with issues of and studying social justice may be able to offer to self-
study expertise on bringing topics like these to the forefront. Self-studies that show
how teacher educators grapple with meanings of social justice and how they guide
their students, future teachers, to consider and begin to see themselves as advocates
and agents for social justice could add rich depth to the self-study literature in an
area that many social studies educators have felt at home with for many years.
Second, taking a subject matter focus will bring new conversations to the self-
study community. Making the focus specific to social studies, or any subject matter,
will help us cultivate more knowledge about teaching and teacher education and
continue to enrich our community. Conversations within self-study among those
who have similar subject matter backgrounds (those who teach future mathematics,
science, and foreign language teachers, for example) may contribute to the devel-
opment of a body of knowledge around the teaching of teachers in those specific
subject areas as self-study has done for more general aspects of teacher education.
It makes me excited to wonder how we might grow as a community if social studies
teacher educators, mathematics teacher educators, and science teacher educators,
for example, begin to research, present, and learn from how we each grapple with
the teaching of our specialized subjects.
Self-Study Questions for Social Studies Educators
As editor of this book I have had the distinct pleasure of reading these pieces on
multiple occasions. The more I read them, the more questions I am inspired to ask.
I hope that others are equally inspired. Below is a short list of those questions that
might be useful for others as they begin to contemplate their own self-study research
program.
•How can I use self-study to become a better teacher of social studies?
•How am I enacting a pedagogy of social justice?
•How does my teaching model one or multiple forms of citizenship (views of
“good citizen”)?
•How am I supporting the creation of a democratic classroom?
•What am I doing that oppresses my students?

206 A.R. Crowe
•How does where I come from (e.g., family, place, race, gender) influence who I
am as a teacher?
•How does this influence my teaching?
•How does it influence my students’ experiences?
•What do I teach my students, future teachers, by the ways that I teach?
•What is my rationale?
•Do I teach in ways that support my rationale?
•Does our teacher education program support new teachers to teach social studies
in powerful ways?
•Are we coherent in our teacher education program?
•Who are we?
•What do we believe?
•How do we enact it?
•Do we teach in ways within our teacher education program that help our students
grapple with questions of citizenship, diversity, and justice?
•If we think we do, how are we doing it?
•Are we good models or not?
References
Berry, A., & Crowe, A. R. (2006). Extending our boundaries through self-study: Framing a
research agenda through beginning a critical friendship. In L. M. Fitzgerald, M. L. Heston, &
D. L. Tidwell (Eds.), Collaboration and Community: Pushing Boundaries through Self-
Study. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education
Practices (pp. 31–35). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa.
Berry, A., & Crowe, A. (2009). Many miles and many emails: Using a self-study to think about,
refine and reframe practice. In D. Tidwell & M. Heston (Eds.), Research methods for the self-
study of practice . Dordrecht: Springer.
Crowe, A. R., & Berry, A. (2007). Teaching prospective teachers about learning to think like a
teacher: Articulating our principles of practice. In T. Russell & J. J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting
a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices . London: Routledge.
Griffiths, M., Bass, L. Johnston, M., & Perselli, V . (2007). Knowledge, social justice, and self-
study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
handbook of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 651–707). Dordrecht:
Springer. (Original work published 2004).
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 62 (2), 129–169.
LaBoskey, V . K. (2007). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In
J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook
of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817-869). Dordrecht: Springer.
(Original work published 2004).
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

12 Looking Across and Moving Forward 207
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307–332.
Richardson, V . (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.
Samaras, A. P., Hicks, M. A., & Garvey Berger, J. (2007). Self-study through personal history.
In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V . K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International hand-
book of self-study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 905-942). Dordrecht: Springer.
(Original work published 2004).

Name Index
A
Acharya, B., 3, 161
Adler, S., 12, 14, 122, 124, 160–161, 173
Alex, 167, 169, 171
Alice, 25, 40
Alleman, J., 73–75, 82
Allen, D. S., 10
Almeida, L. S., 120
American Educational Research Association
(AERA), 3, 89, 161
Ana, 79
Andy, 180, 193–194
Anna, 39–40, 46
Apple, M. W., 29
Armento, B., 14, 160, 173
Ashkettle, B., 62, 177–195
Asia Education Foundation, 111
B
Baird, J., 9
Banks, J. A., 10, 14, 49, 160, 173
Barnes, A. C., 188
Barnes, J., 25
Barr, R. D., 10–11
Barth, J. L., 10–11
Barton, K. C., 13, 59–60, 130, 140
Bass, L., 13, 205
Baumgartner, L., 106
Bazeley, P., 125
Beane, J. A., 29
Beard, C. A., 56
Beck, C., 6
Becker-Ochoa, A. S., 29
Berger, G. J., 92, 203
Berlak, H., 24
Berry, A., 9, 60, 89, 91, 111, 143, 178, 204
Beyer, L. E., 90
Billy, 45–49
Bodone, F., 61Borko, H., 120
Brady, P., 120
Brandenburg, R., 60
Brandon, 167–169
Bransford, J., 166, 171
Brekelmans, M., 89
Britzman, D. P., 159
Brookfield, S. D., 21
Brophy, J., 73–75, 82
Brown, E., 11, 43
Buchmann, M., 120
Buhrow, B., 75, 79, 81
Bullock, S. M., 89
Butler, N. M., 45
C
Cacciattolo, M., 72
Caffarella, R., 106
Caires, S., 120
Calderhead, J., 21
California Pacific Exhibition, 49
Cathy, 79–80
Cherednichenko, B., 72
Chris, 109–110, 113, 115
Clandinin, D. J., 12
Clarke, A., 21
Clift, R. T., 89, 120
Cnudde, V ., 120
Cochran-Smith, M., 5–7, 89–90, 140–142,
158, 160, 178, 192, 195
Cochran-Smith, M. A., 140, 141
Cohen, D. K., 22
Cole, A., 38
Cole, A. L., 21, 91–92, 161, 178
College and University Faculty Assembly
(CUFA), 11, 160, 204
Commager, H. S., 21
Conklin, H., 158
Conklin, H. G., 165
A.R. Crowe (ed.), Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study
Methodology, Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3943-9, C/circlecopyrtSpringer Science+Business Media B.V . 2010209

210 Name Index
Connelly, M., 12
Counts, G. S., 93, 139, 153
Cox, B. C., 12, 29
Cranton, P., 105
Crocco, M. S., 39, 41
Crowe, A., 141
Crowe, A. R., 1–16, 60, 62, 143, 177–195, 197,
200–202, 204
Cuban, L., 22, 40, 46
D
Dakich, E., 72
Dalmau, M., 61, 72
Dalmau, M. C., 61, 72
Daniel, 167, 169–170
Darling, L. F., 37–52, 197, 201–203
Darling-Hammond, L., 152, 158, 166, 171
David, 106, 109–110, 113–114
Davies, A., 72
Delia, A., 40
D e n z i n ,N .K . ,9 1
Derrick, 121–135
deV oss, G. G., 120
Dewey, J., 10–12, 21–29, 31–34, 37–38, 40,
44–46, 50–51, 87–88, 90, 122, 139–142,
144, 153, 202
De Wit, H., 197
Dinkelman, T., 1–16, 21–22, 32–33, 55, 59–60,
122, 124, 142–143, 157–173, 178, 195,
200–202
Donnell, K., 6–7
Drevdahl, D. J., 21, 178
Ducharme, E., 89
E
East, K., 6
Edwards, J., 103–104
Elijah, R., 163
Ellington, L., 93
Engle, S., 29
Erben, M., 91
Erickson, G., 21
Evans, R. W., 10–11, 30, 160
F
Farr, F. F., 37, 39, 42, 47, 52
Farr, W. F., 42
Farr, W. M., 41
Farrar, 22
Feiman-Nemser, S., 139, 158
Feinberg, W., 90
Feldman, A., 7–8, 74
Fenton, E., 12
Finn, C. E., 45, 49, 122Fisher, S., 40
Fitzgerald, L., 91
Fitzgerald, L. M., 9, 60
Flo, C., 37
Flo, S., 38
Freese, A., 185
Freese, A. R., 5, 184
G
Gagnon, P., 122
Galman, S., 9
Garcia, A. U., 79, 81
Gay, J., 72
Geoff, 166–167
Georgia, 79
Ginsburg, M. B., 89
Glass, L., 111
Goodlad, J. I., 22
Goodman, J., 26, 29
Gore, J. M., 89
Grainger, T., 188
Grant, S. G., 30
Greene, M., 39
Griffiths, M., 13, 205
Griffiths, V ., 21
Grossman, P., 90, 158
Grossman, P. L., 30
Grumet, 38–39, 51
Guðjónsdóttir, H., 61, 72–73, 75
Gunstone, R., 89
Gutmann, A., 29
Guyton, E., 120
H
Hamilton, M. L., 3, 5–9, 12, 21, 108, 122, 124,
139, 141–143, 145, 163
Hammerness, K., 158, 165–166, 171
Harnish, J., 122
Harrison, M., 40
Harrison, R. P., 42
Hawley, T. S., 12–13, 55–69, 85, 121, 141,
144, 164, 177–193, 197, 199–203
Heaton, R. M., 89
Heilman, E. E., 15, 68
Henry, 79
Hertzberg, H., 122
Hess, D. E., 94
Heston, M. L., 9, 60
Hicks, M. A., 92, 203
Hilary, 167, 169
Hooley, N., 72
Horace Mann School, 46
Hostetler, A. L., 62, 139–154, 177–193, 197,
199–203, 205

Name Index 211
Houser, N. O., 10
Howell, L., 49
Howey, K., 159
Hudson, 48
Hunt, M. P., 26–28, 30
Hursh, D. W., 29
I
Information and communication technologies
(ICTs), 114
J
James, J. H., 184–185
Janesick, V . J., 30
Jeffrey, B., 187–188
Jenny, 109, 115
Jermaine, 83–84
Jessica, 80
Johnson, R. U., 42
Johnston, M., 12–13, 124, 178, 205
Johnston-Parsons, M., 13
Joram, E., 30
Joseph, 167, 170
K
Kagan, D. M., 203
Kahne, J., 10
Kelly, C., 72
Kennedy, M., 123
K e s s e l s ,J .P .A .M . ,1 1 2
Kincheloe, J. L., 22, 27–29, 74
Kitchen, J., 9, 61
Kluender, M., 89
Knapp, K. A., 62, 177–195, 197, 200–202
Knight, A. K., 122
Knight, J., 74, 82, 107–108, 111
Knighton, B., 73–74, 82
Knowles, G., 38
Knowles, J. G., 21, 91–92, 161, 178
Kondowe, B., 116
Korthagen, F., 89, 99
Korthagen, F. A., 74, 112, 116, 162
Kosnik, C., 6, 9, 89
Koster, B., 89
Kreitzer, A., 30
Kruger, T., 72–73
Kvale, S., 125
L
Labaree, D. F., 161
Laboratory School, 23, 25
LaBoskey, V . K., 3, 8, 11, 21, 60–63, 74, 91,
124, 139–140, 142–144, 150, 163, 170,
177, 205Lampert, M., 89
Lang, D. E., 13, 71–85, 200, 202
Lanier, J., 89
Lassonde, C. A., 9
Lee, Y ., 13
Leming, J., 30
Leming, J. S., 201
Levicky, M., 62, 177–195, 197, 200–202
Levstik, L. S., 59–60, 88, 130
Lighthall, F. F., 61
Lil, 39
Lindquist, T., 81
Liston, D. P., 6, 21, 33, 157, 162
Little, J., 89
Lortie, D. C., 30, 65, 152–153, 203
Loughran, J., 30, 65, 152–153, 203
Loughran, J. J., 3, 5, 8–9, 12, 21, 33, 55, 68,
74, 89–91, 93, 108, 139, 142–144, 154,
162–164, 166, 178, 185
Louie, B. Y ., 21, 178
Lucas, G., 187
Lucretia, 39
Lunenberg, M., 89, 99, 162
Lytle, S. L., 5, 7, 141–142, 178, 192
M
Madaus, G. F., 30
Malulah, 82–83
Mann, H., 40, 46
Mannisto, P., 120
Marano, N. L., 139, 141, 143
Mardi, 168
Margolis, J., 6, 13, 55
Mariana, 80
Marker, G., 160
Martin, S., 71
Marty, 170–171
Massialas, B., 12
Massialas, B. G., 29
Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT), 75
Maura, 80, 82
Mayer-Smith, J., 120
Mayfield, V ., 120
M c A n i n c h ,A .C . ,1 2
McIntyre, D. J., 120
McNeil, L., 22
McNiff, J., 7
Mehlinger, H., 160
Menand, L., 23, 25
Merriam, S., 106
Metcalf, L. E., 26–28, 30
Miguel, 80–81
Mike, 180, 193–194

212 Name Index
Mills, G., 7
Mindes, G., 73
Mishler, E., 63
Mitchell, C., 9
Montecinos, C., 120
Moon, B., 120
Muir, J., 42
Mulraney, R., 72
Munro, P., 39, 41
Myers, C. B., 141, 153
N
National Council for Social Studies (NCSS),
12, 71, 73, 76, 122, 140–141, 153, 160
Nelson, J. L., 29
Newmann, F. M., 29, 56–59, 61, 123
Nobuhiro, 110
Noddings, N., 119, 121–125
Noffke, S. E., 7
Noreen, 77
Northfield, J., 33, 74, 89, 108, 139, 142–144
Nott, D. L., 120
O
Ochoa, A., 29
Ochoa-Becker, A., 29, 181, 183
Olds, E. F., 40
O l i v e r ,D .W . ,2 9
Olmstead, M., 120
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), 107
Ow, M., 120
P
Pagano, J., 90
Pajares, M. F., 203
Paley, V., 48
P a r k ,S .C . ,1 4 2
Parker, C., 61
Parker, W. C., 11, 14, 22, 29, 87, 90, 92, 95,
122, 160, 168, 173
Paugh, P., 7
Paul, A., 40
Peck, A. S., 40
Peltokallio, L., 120
Pennsylvania Normal School, 39
Perselli, V ., 13, 205
Pike, G., 112
Pinar, W., 39
Pinar, W. F., 66
Pinnegar, S., 5–9, 60–61, 108, 122, 124, 139,
141–143, 145
Pithouse, K., 9
P o w e l l ,A .G . ,2 2Powell, D., 12–13, 21–34, 65, 85, 199, 202,
203
Powell, D. J., 55, 62, 121, 141, 164
Professional development schools (PDS), 75
Purdy, J. M., 21, 178
R
Ravitch, D., 122
Rich, A., 38
Richardson, V ., 203
Ritter, J. K., 12–13, 55, 62, 85, 87–100, 121,
141, 143, 164, 199–200, 202–203
Riveros, M., 120
Robert, 42
Ross, E. W., 10, 12, 26, 28–29, 88, 158, 160
Russell, T., 3, 5–6, 21, 55, 74, 90–91, 139,
143–144, 153, 163
Rust, F., 158
Ryan, A., 37–38, 44–46, 50–51, 177–195
S
Salas, K. D., 93, 96
Samaras, A., 184–185
Samaras, A. P., 5, 91–92, 203
Sanderson, G., 105
Saxe, D. W., 30
Schommer, M., 152
Schön, D. A., 7, 21, 33, 105, 139, 141–143,
151–152
Schooner, P., 49
Secada, W. G., 123
Selby, D., 112
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
(S-STEP), 3, 74, 76, 91
Shaver, J. P., 24, 29, 56–59, 61–68, 68
Shaver, P., 13
Shermis, S. S., 10–11
Shulman, L., 158
Sierra Club, 42
Sikkenga, K., 6, 13, 55
Singer, A. J., 88, 90
Siry, C., 13, 71
Smith, L., 6
Solis, M. C., 120
Sonny, 42–44, 52
Stackman, R. W., 21, 178
Stanley, W. B., 29
Stodolosky, S. S., 30
Strong, S., 45
Strong-Wilson, T., 39, 56, 58–59
Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE),
105, 109
Suzuki, E., 120

Name Index 213
Swennen, A., 99
Swisher, V ., 48
T
Tabachnick, B. R., 152
Talvitie, U., 120
Tenorio, R., 93
Thomas, M., 13
Thornton, S. J., 29, 30, 59–60
Tidwell, D., 91, 143
Tidwell, D. L., 9
Tom, A. R., 158, 165
Tomlinson, C. A., 83
Trisha, 78
Trout, M., 119–135, 199–203,
205
Tsolidis, G., 104
Tudball, L., 103–116, 199–203
Tyson, C. A., 142
U
Ulrich, L. T., 50
UNESCO, 106
United States Congress, 127
V
van Hover, S. D., 30
van Manen, M., 147, 150
Vandergrift, 39–40
VanSledright, B. A., 186
Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority
(VCAA), 104
Vinson, K. D., 88W
Walters, S., 93
Watras, J., 122
Weber, S., 9
Wehlage, G., G., 123
Weiler, K., 38–41
Weiss, D., 93
Wenger, E., 165
West Orange High, 45–48, 50
Westbrook, R. B., 29
Westheimer, J., 10
Whitehead, J., 7, 89
Whitlock, T. W., 141
Whitson, J. A., 90
Wideen, M., 120
Wilkes, 110
Will, 41–42, 45, 48–49, 52
Wineburg, S., 96
Wink, 81
World Council for Curriculum and Instruction,
111
Wornal, D., 41–42
Worthington, K., 6
Wubbels, T., 89
Y
Yeager, E. A., 30
Yin, R. K., 124–125
Z
Zeichner, K., 4, 144, 153
Zeichner, K. M., 6–7, 21, 33, 89, 152, 157–158,
160, 162
Zimpher, N. L., 120

Subject Index
A
Action research, 3, 7, 9, 12, 105, 186
B
Blogs, 114, 182, 191
C
Care/caring, xix–xxi, 44–46, 49, 119–135, 199,
203–204
commit, 121, 134
engrosses, 121, 124–125, 127–128,
130–131, 134
motivational displacement, 121, 131–132
Citizenship, xvii–xxi, 10, 22, 29, 31, 56–57,
61, 67, 87–100, 103, 106, 112, 114,
122, 140–141, 148, 150, 153, 160,
184–186, 199, 203, 205–206
Coherence
enacted, 158–159, 161–164, 166, 168, 172
program, 157–158, 161–162, 172
Collaboration/collaborative, xix, xxi–xii, 7–9,
11–13, 55, 61–63, 65–68, 71, 77, 93,
95, 105, 108, 112, 116, 119–122,
130–132, 134–135, 139, 141–145, 150,
152–154, 158–159, 163–165, 170–172,
177–195, 200–203
Coteaching, 71, 75, 77, 80
Creativity/creative teaching, 187–188,
193–194
Cultural understanding, 28
Curriculum, xix–xxi, 13, 34, 43, 49–50, 56–57,
65–66, 71–85, 88–89, 95, 103–116,
122–123, 128, 130, 132, 134–135, 145,
148, 158–160, 163, 165, 167, 181, 183,
187–188, 191, 201
D
Data
analysis, 63, 66, 146, 177–178, 180, 185,
188collection, 7, 9, 60, 63, 76, 124, 143,
145–146, 177, 178–179, 184, 186, 188,
190, 194
Decision making, 28, 55–60, 63, 65–66, 69,
81, 88, 93, 99, 140–141, 144, 146, 152,
154, 181, 185, 190, 193–194, 201, 203
Deliberation, 25, 48, 59, 65–66, 91, 141, 150,
177–178
Democracy, xv, xvii–xviii, xx, 1, 10–11,
22–28, 31–32, 34, 50–51, 71–85,
88, 90, 97, 135, 139–140, 153–154,
168–169, 198–199
Democratic citizenship, xvii–xxi, 22, 87–100,
150, 153, 160, 203
Democratic education, xxi, 11, 22, 24, 29, 87,
199–200
Democratic life, xviii, 87, 122, 140, 199
Democratic values, xxi, 140, 199
Dewey, John, xix–xx, 10–12, 21–29, 31–34,
37–38, 40, 44–46, 50–51, 87–88, 90,
122, 139–142, 144, 153, 202
Diversity, xviii, xx, 5, 9, 11–13, 71–85, 95,
103, 116, 132–133, 161, 184, 199–200,
202, 204–206
Documentation, xvii–xviii, xx, 71–85, 122,
182, 201
Dogmatic thinking, 28
Dualistic thinking, 23, 28
E
Efficacy, 147–148, 152, 154, 189–190
Electronic discussions/discussion boards,
71–72, 76, 88, 92–94, 96
Elementary social studies
education, 71, 73–74
teacher education, xx, 13, 74, 77, 83
Epistemology, xvii–xviii, 22, 32
Equity, xix, 10–11, 111, 135, 148, 202, 205
215

216 Subject Index
Experienced/in-service teacher(s), xx, xxii, 10,
59, 152–153, 159, 162, 177–179, 181,
184, 186, 189–191, 200
F
Field experience, 72, 158–159, 161, 164–166,
171
G
Graduate education, 177, 180, 192, 194–195
H
Historical thinking, 184–185
I
Images, 28, 124, 157–158, 163
Industrialization, 27
Inquiry, 1–9, 11–12, 14–15, 24, 28–29, 33,
39, 46, 60–61, 72, 74, 97–99, 108,
111–113, 115, 140–143, 146–147, 151,
153–154, 159–166, 168, 170, 172, 178,
186, 189–190, 198–199, 204
stance, 11–12, 140–141, 147, 151–152,
186, 195
Internationalisation/internationalising
curriculum and teaching, 104–112,
114–116, 201
K
Knowledge, xxi, 4, 7–8, 10, 12, 15, 23–24,
28, 32–34, 50–51, 64, 66, 68, 73–74,
76–77, 79–80, 82–84, 87, 89, 91–93,
97, 104–105, 107–108, 110–112, 114,
116, 126, 140–143, 146, 149–150,
152–153, 160–163, 172, 177–178,
187–188, 191, 194, 200, 202, 204–205
L
Laboratory school, 23, 25
Learning, xix–xx, 87–100, 128, 130, 187
M
Methods
blogs, 191
class/course, 15, 65, 164
collaboration, 7–9, 142, 164, 178, 194
electronic discussions/discussion board,
71–72, 88, 92–94
historical, 39, 44, 184, 203
journals/journaling by teacher/teacher
educator, 123
observations/field notes, 75, 124–126, 133,
203
Praxis Inquiry Protocol forms, 72–73, 83student work, 179, 184, 190, 203
Modeling, xix–xx, 11, 68, 87–100, 202
Modernity, 28
N
National Council for the Social Studies
(NCSS), xvi, 12, 56, 71, 73, 76, 122,
140–141, 153, 160–161
Noddings, Nel, xxi, 119, 121–125
P
Postmodern, 27–28
Practice, 73, 76–83, 135, 153–154, 189–192
Practicum, 103, 106, 123, 165
Pragmatic thinking, xviii, 22–23
Pragmatism, xix–xx, 22–26, 31–34, 202
Praxis Inquiry (PI), 71–74, 76, 84–85
Praxis Inquiry Protocol (PIP), 71–73, 75–80,
82–85
practice changed, 73, 77, 79, 81–83
practice described, 73, 76–82
practice explained, 73, 78–79, 81–82
practice theorized, 73, 81
Problem solving, 7, 25, 32, 73, 81, 127,
140–141, 152, 154, 163, 193
Process, 65–66, 108, 186, 189, 192
Professional development, 21, 75, 88, 91, 107,
120, 125, 139, 144, 151, 153–154, 161,
177–178
Professional relationships, 120–121
Program coherence, 157–158, 161–162, 172
Prospective/preservice teachers, xix–xxi, 13,
15, 30–31, 71–85, 88–89, 99–100, 106,
158–159, 164, 166, 202–204
Purpose of social studies, xvii, 99, 130
teacher education, xvi–xxii, 2, 12, 14–16,
55–57, 60–61, 67–69, 87–100, 109,
123, 157–173, 194, 200, 202
Q
Questions, xix, xxii, 68, 144–145, 167–168,
197–206
R
Rationale
-based teaching, 56
-building, 56–59, 61–63, 188
Reflection, 7, 9, 12, 22, 25–26, 28–34, 42,
66–67, 72, 74–75, 79–80, 84, 88,
92–99, 105, 107, 111, 124, 129,
141–142, 151, 154, 168, 183, 186, 189,
198
reflective practitioner, 147, 151–152, 154
reflective teaching, xix–xx, 6–7, 21–22,
26–31, 93, 165, 168, 170

Subject Index 217
reflective thinking, xix, 10–12, 22–26,
29–34, 141–142, 195, 199, 202
Relationships, 1, 6, 10, 23, 28, 51, 64, 95, 97,
109, 119–121, 124, 126, 130, 142, 148,
153, 178, 199
Research, xix, xxi, 4–5, 11, 14–145, 89–92,
120, 123–124, 144–145, 157–173,
179–180, 184, 198
Risk-taking, 181–183
S
Self-study as teaching, 71–85
Self-study of teacher education practices
(S-STEP), xv–xvi, 3, 74, 76, 91
Social change, 31, 140–142, 151, 153, 160
Social education, 11, 22, 122, 139–140,
151–154, 184, 192
Social justice, xix, 10–11, 13, 72–74, 76,
93–94, 104–105, 109, 111, 115, 142,
147–148, 153, 170, 202, 204–205
Social skills, xix–xxi, 119–135
Student(s), 63–65, 74, 103–104, 109–116,
182–183, 186, 191
engagement, 93, 130–132, 149, 165–166,
193–194
resistance, 147–150, 152
teacher(s), xviii–xix, 62, 89, 92–95,
97–100, 103, 109, 112, 116, 119–126,
129–130, 135, 166, 170, 185, 201, 205T
Teacher
education, 72–74, 87–100, 157–173,
177–195, 200–201, 204–205
education programs, xix, xxi, 13–15, 30,
32, 56, 59, 68, 72, 89, 104, 120, 123,
134, 152, 154, 157–173, 194, 206
educators, 74, 139, 205–206
Teaching prospective/preservice teacher(s),
xix–xxi, 13, 15, 30–31, 71–85, 88–89,
99–100, 106, 158–159, 164, 166,
202–204
U
University supervisor(s), 120
V
Value(s), xv, xxi, 1, 4, 11, 14, 16, 25, 31, 89,
99, 105, 107–108, 111–112, 115, 140,
185, 199, 203
of self-study, xvii, 32–33, 172
W
What is self-study/defining self-study, 3,
142–143