1 / 28

EdConf Prague 2010 Changing the social studies ( textbooks ) by design based research

EdConf Prague 2010 Changing the social studies ( textbooks ) by design based research. Jana Stará*, Michaela Dvořáková** Dominik Dvořák*** Charles University in Prague Faculty of Education * Dept . of Primary Education ** Dept . Of Civics *** IRDE. Outline.

melosa
Télécharger la présentation

EdConf Prague 2010 Changing the social studies ( textbooks ) by design based research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EdConf Prague 2010Changingthe social studies (textbooks)by design based research Jana Stará*, Michaela Dvořáková** Dominik Dvořák*** Charles University in PragueFacultyofEducation * Dept. ofPrimaryEducation** Dept. OfCivics *** IRDE

  2. Outline 1. The recent Czech curricular reform and its impact on the model of social studies. 2. What is worth changing in Czech primary social studies. 3. How do teachers interpret and implement the new textbooks.

  3. Primary social studies In the Czech curriculum since the beginnig of the 20th century as Vlastivěda (patriotic studies) Modelled after the German Heimatkunde

  4. Education for partiotism Austria-Hungary (till 1918) Independent Czechoslovakia Studies of the homeland: • Homeland geography and key events of national history. • Building the national identity and loyalty to the state. Whiletheloyaltynowbelonged to thenewstateandnewpolitical systém. Despitethereformefforts, theconceptofsocialstudiesdid not changedsubstantially.

  5. Social studies under Communist rule In 1970s and 1980s modernisation of curriculum. Accent on geography and on practical skills (paramilitary training was a top priority). Despite the ideology, there were some pozitive moments: reduction of content, elaborated methodology, some research behind the textbooks… • Aim: „Goodthinking“ citizen in Orwellian sense • Political instruction expanded – Socialist state and its institutions. • Selected chapters from history portray the changes of life after the Communist party assumed the power.

  6. Social studies after 1989:A return to patriotism? • Ideologized historical chapters replaced by an outline of the whole Czech history from prehistoric ages to contemporary history • European integration spread the horizon of geography further into the Europe. • But in fact, it is a return to original„patriotic“ model. • Parallel „small history“ and „small geography“

  7. Case of primary history • A lot offacts. • Therelationshipbetweentheprimarysocialstudiesandthe (lower) secondaryhistory not clear. • Framework curriculardocumentsgraduallyleftoutthehistoricalfacts. • Textbooksandteachersstillfeelobliged to transmit a „fullpictureofCzechnation‘s past“ without a reflectedselection.

  8. The Czech curricular reformKey moment: 2007 National curricular framework (RVP – Rámcový vzdělávací program) stressing the key (generic) competences and cross-curricular topics. Mandatory SBCD -- Curriculum development should become an integral part of every teachers’ professional role. Schools had been given approx. 2 years to develop their curricula 2007 – all Basic schools – school curricula at grades 1 and 6

  9. National curricular frameworksExample: History in the primary school Before 2007 List of 6 to 12 periods. 12 or more names, some curricula dates. Conceptualy political history. Now No periods listed. No names or dates listed. Social history or local history could replace the political history.

  10. Multiple case study of five elementary schoolsand their new curricula • First experiences suggest that the scope and sequence of subject matter do not differ considerably in individual school curricula. • Most teachers simply copied the old curriculum into the new framework. • Commercially produced textbooks remain an important factor influencing the teaching and learning in the basic school.

  11. Ourattempt: Design-basedresearch • To design anartefact (seriesof 5 textbooks) thatcouldfacilitatethechange in educational reality • Duringtheprocessofwrittingthetextbooks to collectthe feedback on theactual use ofthebooks Givenweknowtheintentionoftheauthors, to gaindeeperknowledgeofthedifferencesbetweentheintendedandenacted curriculum To learn more aboutthepotentialofthebook to changetheactualinstruction.

  12. Our intention in the textbooks • Trainingofskills (? Developcompetencies) • More cross-subjectconnectionswithinthesocialstudies • Importantgeneralizations on sociallife • Example: How to teachaboutfamily.

  13. Textbook pages: The families are differerent

  14. Conflicts are normal

  15. Part of DBR: research of enacted curriculum (case of 3 teachers) • What meanings teachers product from textbooks? - How teachers interpret suggestions of textbook and teacher‘s manual accompanying the textbook? - What is the fidelity of enacted curriculum? - What learning experiences are offered to students by teachers?

  16. Methodology: Videotaping the the unit on family taught „according to the book“. One unit (3 lessons) about family (projected in a teacher‘s manual accompanying the textbook) taught by 3 teachers = altogether 9 lessons. • Interviews with teachers. • Qualitative analysis of transcripts of lessons and the interviews.

  17. Intended curriculum • Students (Grade 2) learn how to ask questions, interview adults and record data • Students actively debate with a representative of grandparents‘ generation in the class • Teacher offer an opportunity to intergenerational discussion and cooperation on the production of family tree to the families of students

  18. Intended vs. enactedcurriculum • Intention: • Students ask questions, interview adults and record data • Enacted curriculum: • Teachers A and C: ask questions by themselves, children answer them (direct teaching) • Teacher B: follows intended curriculum

  19. Intended vs. enactedcurriculum • Intention: • Students actively debate with a representative of grandparents‘ generation in the class • Enacted curriculum: • Teachers A and C: no grantparent came to school, instead of that teacher explained how was the life 50 years ago (direct teaching) • Teacher B: followed intended curriculum

  20. Reasons given by teachers why they followed (or not) the textbook A: „ I asked children to invite any grandma or grandpa into the class, but nobody from grandparents was interested in it…“ B: „ It was not any problem, I know I can ask for it… I have great experience with grandparents and parents in the class…“ C: „ I haven't known that it is intended. Even I knew it I wouldn't invite grandparents… It is complicated and not so important…“

  21. Intended vs. enactedcurriculum • Intention: • Teacher offersan opportunity to intergenerational discussion and cooperation during the production of family tree to the families • Enacted curriculum: • Teachers A, C: did not assign the homework (creating a family tree with parents at home); drilled the genealogical relations much more than recommended; • Teacher C assigned the individual task (at the classroom) to create student‘s own family tree • Teacher B: followed the intended curriculum

  22. Reasons given by teachers why they followed (or not) the textbook A: „I was afraid of it. There could be children from divorced families…“ B: „I didn‘t makechanges [to the suggested activities]. I think it is very important that children would discuss and learn something about family from parents, not from me. Parents didn‘t have problems with this assignment, they explain a lot of things to children … C: „It is easier to do it in the class. It is necessary not to present [the actual composition of the family] as an [problematic] issue. Children must accent it as fact -- You have a father, I do not…“

  23. How do teachers reflect the changes they did? A: „I forgot some activities but the goals were fulfilled.“ B: „ I appreciate work with this textbook. No changes were necessary.“ C: „I‘ve taughtfor more than 10 yearsso I already know what the kids need.It is necessary to follow their needs, not to follow blindly the textbook…“

  24. Interpretation • All teachers believed that they fulfilled the main goals of curricular material despite the fact • Their interpretation of goals and suggested activities sometimes differ considerably from the intention of curriculum writers (teachers A and C) • It is possible to use curricular materials (more of less faithfully) without knowledge or acceptation of their onthologic and epistemological basis

  25. Conclusion The limited evidence we have collected suggest that in the area of primary social studies: The freedom given to the teachers by school-based curriculum development did not change the curriculum substantionally. Nor the carefully devised textbook / curricular project did not facilitated the aims of reform in some cases.

More Related