Citation
Beginning social studies teachers' use of technology in the teaching of history

Material Information

Title:
Beginning social studies teachers' use of technology in the teaching of history
Creator:
Doppen, Frans H
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Art teachers ( jstor )
Beginning teachers ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Computer technology ( jstor )
Computers in education ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
History instruction ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
BEGINNING, BELIEFS, COMPUTERS, EMPATHY, HISTORICAL, HISTORY, INDUCTION, INQUIRY, MULTIPLE, PERSPECTIVE, PERSPECTIVES, SOCIAL, STUDIES, TAKING, TEACHER, TEACHERS, TEACHING, TECHNOLOGY, THINKING
Dissertations, Academic -- Teaching and Learning -- UF ( lcsh )
Teaching and Learning thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
City of Palmetto ( local )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This study of four beginning social studies teachers, all graduates of the secondary PROTEACH program, explored how effectively they were able to use technology in their classrooms to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy. The data in this yearlong study consisted of observations at four separate schools, interviews with the participating teachers, a student survey, interviews with students, and various documents. The teachers in this study felt well prepared by the PROTEACH program. During their induction they focused primarily on professional concerns, including the lack of effective support for the integration of technology in their classroom. While their experiences with technology in the PROTEACH program profoundly impacted their beliefs, their sense of self-efficacy largely determined the degree to which they pioneered new forms of pedagogical content knowledge when they taught historical inquiry with computers. Although their students generally liked using computers to learn about history, additional factors, such as the state test and the unique culture at each school, further impacted the degree to which they were able to do so. The findings suggest that teacher preparation programs need to help preservice social studies teachers learn how to integrate technology into real world history classrooms, provide preservice teachers with opportunities to reconcile their beliefs about history pedagogy with technology integration, and help them develop multiple teaching methods that both work for them and engage their students. In addition, preservice teachers need opportunities to develop a clear understanding of historical thinking and historical inquiry in order to effectively engage their students in doing history and constructing their own meanings of history.
Summary:
ABSTRACT (cont.): Furthermore, the study indicates that beginning teacher induction programs need to provide better support for beginning social studies teachers in their efforts to integrate technology in the history classroom. Suggestions for further study of teaching history with computers include research on the impact of teacher preparation programs on teacher beliefs, specific strategies for teaching history, the effectiveness of teacher induction programs, the impact of teacher and student understandings of historical inquiry, longitudinal use, stakeholder attitudes, and the actual use of the available infrastructure.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2002.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
General Note:
Title from title page of source document.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Frans H. Doppen.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Doppen, Frans H. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/1/2007
Resource Identifier:
029833959 ( ALEPH )
77810870 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

BEGINNING SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS’ USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE TEACHING OF HISTORY By FRANS H. DOPPEN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2002

PAGE 2

Copyright 2002 by Frans H. Doppen

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my parents, Antoon Doppen and Rikie Stortelder, who lived so their children might reach their dreams.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the teachers who participated in this study, and the members of my supervisory committee, Drs. Phillip A. Clark, Kara M. Dawson, Colleen R. Swain, Eugene A. Todd, and Elizabeth A. Yeager. I especially would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Yeager, for her continued inspiration, guidance, and support throughout the entire doctoral program. I am also especially thankful to the teachers in this study, who allowed me to come into their classroom for an entire year, and who so generously gave of their time. Having spent nearly two decades in the classroom, observing these beginning social studies teachers’ enthusiasm rekindled my faith in the importance of the subject area. I am also thankful to Dr. John K. Lee at Georgia State University for generously sharing with me a copy of his dissertation, which provided me with an excellent framework for organizing my own research. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. M. David Miller at the University of Florida for reviewing my statistical analysis. Furthermore, I am indebted to my colleagues at the P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School at the University of Florida, who continue to share my passion for the social studies. For their support and endless willingness to discuss why we do what we do, I am very thankful to Thomas A. Anderson, Brian K. Marchman, and Mark E. Reed. Likewise, I am grateful to my director, Dr. Frances M. Vandiver, who made it possible for me to continue to teach at the school while pursuing my doctoral program. iv

PAGE 5

Finally, I am most thankful to my partner, Loraine A. McCosker, and our children Juliaan and Elsbeth, who have been so supportive and understanding throughout this enduring process. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 Background.....................................................................................................................1 Social Studies and Technology.......................................................................................6 Statement of the Problem................................................................................................9 Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................................9 Research Questions.......................................................................................................10 Overview of this Dissertation.......................................................................................11 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................12 Introduction...................................................................................................................12 Teacher Beliefs.............................................................................................................12 Teachers' Background............................................................................................12 Teachers' Pragmatism............................................................................................14 Teacher Preparation...............................................................................................18 Summary................................................................................................................20 Teacher Induction.........................................................................................................21 Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................21 Attrition And Retention.........................................................................................23 Professional Concerns............................................................................................25 Personal Concerns..................................................................................................28 Beginning Teacher Support....................................................................................30 Summary................................................................................................................33 Teaching History...........................................................................................................34 Historical Background...........................................................................................34 Historical Thinking................................................................................................37 Perspective Taking.................................................................................................41 Historical Empathy................................................................................................46 Summary................................................................................................................54 vi

PAGE 7

Technology And The Social Studies.............................................................................55 Background: Technology And Education..............................................................55 The Philosophical Divide.......................................................................................58 Computer Use In The Classroom...........................................................................60 Factors Impacting Computer Use..........................................................................63 Teacher Education And Computer Use..................................................................66 Background: Technology And The Social Studies................................................68 Computer Use In The Social Studies.....................................................................70 Social Studies Teacher Education And Computer Use..........................................72 Summary................................................................................................................73 Summary Of The Review Of The Research Literature................................................76 Beginning Social Studies Teachers And Technology: What We Know................76 Beginning Social Studies Teachers And Technology: What We Do Not Know...77 3 METHODS....................................................................................................................79 Introduction...................................................................................................................79 Participants and Setting.................................................................................................81 Design of the Study.......................................................................................................85 Procedures for Collecting Data..............................................................................85 Observations....................................................................................................86 Interviews.........................................................................................................86 Survey..............................................................................................................87 Procedures for Analyzing and Reporting Data......................................................88 Analyzing the data...........................................................................................88 Reporting the data............................................................................................89 Validity...................................................................................................................90 Natural History.......................................................................................................90 4 FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................93 Introduction...................................................................................................................93 Teacher Beliefs.............................................................................................................94 Assertion 1.............................................................................................................95 Teacher beliefs about social studies.................................................................95 Student beliefs about social studies.................................................................99 Summary..............................................................................................................104 Teacher Induction.......................................................................................................104 Assertion 2...........................................................................................................105 Teacher preparation.......................................................................................105 Professional concerns.....................................................................................107 Support structures..........................................................................................111 Technology support.......................................................................................113 Summary..............................................................................................................115 Teaching History.........................................................................................................116 Assertion 3...........................................................................................................116 Teacher understandings.................................................................................116 vii

PAGE 8

Guiding student inquiry.................................................................................120 Student computer use.....................................................................................126 Learning with computers...............................................................................130 Student understandings..................................................................................134 Summary..............................................................................................................135 Technology And The Social Studies...........................................................................137 Assertion 4...........................................................................................................137 Integrating technology...................................................................................137 Teaching historical inquiry with computers..................................................142 Developing pedagogical content knowledge.................................................152 Summary..............................................................................................................161 Technology Infrastructure...........................................................................................163 Assertion 5...........................................................................................................163 Teacher self-efficacy......................................................................................163 Student access to computers..........................................................................169 Impact of the state test...................................................................................172 Technology culture........................................................................................176 Summary..............................................................................................................182 5 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................185 Summary.....................................................................................................................185 Recommendations.......................................................................................................191 Suggestions For Further Study...................................................................................194 APPENDIX A TEACHER ENTRY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL.......................................................197 B TEACHER EXIT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL...........................................................199 C STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL.....................................................................202 D STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS...............................................................................204 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................216 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................235 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Participants and Field Sites.........................................................................................82 D-1. Student Composition by Teacher and Course.........................................................207 D-2. Student Attitudes to the Use of Technology in their Social Studies Courses..........208 D-3. Analysis of Variance of Student Attitudes to the Use of Technology in their Social Studies Courses....................................................................................................210 D-4. All Pairwise Comparisons of Student Attitudes to the Use of Technology in their Social Studies Courses.........................................................................................212 D-5. Correlation Between Student Survey Responses.....................................................215 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BEGINNING SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS’ USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE TEACHING OF HISTORY By Frans H. Doppen December 2002 Chair: Elizabeth A. Yeager Cochair: Eugene A. Todd Major Department: School of Teaching and Learning This study of four beginning social studies teachers, all graduates of the secondary PROTEACH program, explored how effectively they were able to use technology in their classrooms to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy. The data in this yearlong study consisted of observations at four separate schools, interviews with the participating teachers, a student survey, interviews with students, and various documents. The teachers in this study felt well prepared by the PROTEACH program. During their induction they focused primarily on professional concerns, including the lack of effective support for the integration of technology in their classroom. While their experiences with technology in the PROTEACH program profoundly impacted their beliefs, their sense of self-efficacy largely determined the degree to which they pioneered new forms of pedagogical content knowledge when they taught historical inquiry with x

PAGE 11

computers. Although their students generally liked using computers to learn about history, additional factors, such as the state test and the unique culture at each school, further impacted the degree to which they were able to do so. The findings suggest that teacher preparation programs need to help preservice social studies teachers learn how to integrate technology into “real world” history classrooms, provide preservice teachers with opportunities to reconcile their beliefs about history pedagogy with technology integration, and help them develop multiple teaching methods that both work for them and engage their students. In addition, preservice teachers need opportunities to develop a clear understanding of historical thinking and historical inquiry in order to effectively engage their students in doing history and constructing their own meanings of history. Furthermore, the study indicates that beginning teacher induction programs need to provide better support for beginning social studies teachers in their efforts to integrate technology in the history classroom. Suggestions for further study of teaching history with computers include research on the impact of teacher preparation programs on teacher beliefs, specific strategies for teaching history, the effectiveness of teacher induction programs, the impact of teacher and student understandings of historical inquiry, longitudinal use, stakeholder attitudes, and the actual use of the available infrastructure. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background In 1922, Thomas Edison proclaimed, “The motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system, and in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks” (Cuban, 1986, p. 9). Writing twenty years later, in his widely used Teaching the Social Studies, Edgar Wesley (1942) asserted that when schools first began to make extensive use of the motion picture, exaggerated prophesies were made that it would replace the teacher, reduce enormously the amount of time students would have to spend in school, and lessen the importance and extent of reading and study. “While these prophecies have not come to pass,” he wrote, “the motion picture has indeed won a place of recognized importance in education” (p. 343). Cuban (1986) has argued that for more than a century many educators have dreamed of making instruction more productive and enriching by using machines. According to its advocates, the machine would increase teacher effectiveness and allow children to learn more and faster. However, surveys would later inevitably document that its use by teachers was disappointingly infrequent. Seemingly affirming this image of “teachers as gatekeepers” (Conway & Zhao, 2001; Cuban, 1986), Martorella argued as recently as 1997 that if a “sleeping giant” were to awaken, he would be struck with how little the social studies curriculum has been affected by the technology sweeping the nation. 1

PAGE 13

2 While educational institutions have indeed often lagged behind in the adoption of innovations (Dawson, Bull & Swain, 2000; Rogers, 1995), in recent years the diffusion of computer technology into the public schools has been remarkable. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), between 1995 and 1999 the number of computers for instructional purposes in all public schools in the United States rose from 5,621,000 to 7,806,000, representing an increase in the mean number of computers per school from 72 to 100 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], March 2001). While in 1994 only 35 percent of all public schools had access to the Internet, by the fall of 2000 this figure had risen to 98 percent. And, unlike in previous years, there was virtually no difference in school access to the Internet by poverty level or metropolitan status. By the fall of 2000, 77 percent of all classrooms had computers with Internet access. At the same time, the ratio of students to instructional computers had decreased to 5 to 1, whereas the ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access had decreased to 7 to 1 (NCES, May 2001). While inequities due to poverty level or metropolitan status persist at the classroom level (NCES, May 2001), the total figures clearly demonstrate the explosive diffusion of computer technology that has taken place in the public schools. At the same time, significant change has occurred in the way in which computers are being used in the public schools. In the early 1980s, Goodlad (1984) still wondered how schools managed to shield themselves from the technological revolution that was sweeping all around them as he poignantly noted that the pencil continued to be used as “the patriarch of the tools of learning” (p. 227). Even during the early 1990s, most schools still lacked good hardware and software. Many teachers remained reluctant to use

PAGE 14

3 computers, while perhaps a mere five percent of those who did use computers could be labeled as exemplary users (Becker, 1994). If students were using the computer at all, most of them spent much of their time learning word processing skills (Becker, 1991, 1994). While word processing remains the most common use of computers, CD-ROMS and World Wide Web searching have become the second and third most common forms of computer use. Most teachers now make some use of the Internet to find information, use email, or post information, including student work, on the Web (Becker, 1999). And those who have Internet access in their own classrooms are much more likely to assign their students to do work on the Internet as well (Becker, 1999). In addition to these sweeping changes, attention has been increasingly focused on the way teachers are being prepared to use technology. In a report released in 1997, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) called for teachers to be fearless in the use of technology, and asserted that teacher education programs were falling short of adequately preparing teachers for the 21st century (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 1997). Subsequently, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) released its so-called Milken report in 1999, which noted that, while most institutions reported an adequate infrastructure, most faculty failed to model the use of computers in their courses (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 1999). Likewise, the report noted that most preservice teachers did not use computers in the K-12 schools despite their availability (ISTE, 1999). Meanwhile, research has shown that when teacher educators and supervising teachers model the use of computers, there is a strong probability that preservice teachers

PAGE 15

4 will use them in their teaching as well (Stephens, 2000). In cooperation with ISTE, NCATE has developed the well-received National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for students as well as teachers (Cherup & Linklater, 2000; ISTE, 1998, 2000). As a result, NCATE now calls for ending the practice of separate technology courses, and instead advocates a model in which technology is an integral part of all teacher education coursework, which some institutions have begun to implement (Cherup & Linklater, 2000; NCATE, 1997; Wiebe, Taylor & Thomas, 2000). Transformation in education and in the social studies in particular, however, is not merely due to the emergence of computer technology. While there have been many reform movements in the social studies (Lybarger, 1991), the most recent one emerged to the forefront upon the release in 1983 of A Nation at Risk, which marked the beginning of a heated debate on national curriculum standards and which has since subsided and quietly shifted to the state level (Doppen & Yeager, 1998). Two national reports have been especially influential in the most recent social studies reform movement. In 1984 the National Center for History in the Schools (NCHS) released its report National Standards for History, which encouraged teachers to engage their students in activities drawing upon skills in five interconnected dimensions of historical thinking: chronological thinking, historical comprehension, historical analysis and interpretation, historical research capabilities, and historical issues-analysis and decision-making. That same year, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) released its report Expectations of Excellence (1984), which recommended that students develop civic competence, defined as the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. While both reports

PAGE 16

5 continued to emphasize the importance of content knowledge, they also placed a greater emphasis on students developing process skills such as knowing how to gather information, analyze data, and develop their own interpretations of the subject matter. Recent developments in both curriculum standards and technology have begun to impact the preparation of future social studies teachers, who are being strongly encouraged to use new technology in their classrooms in order to promote student achievement (White, 1997). Some advocate that preservice teachers must learn how to create learning environments that provide opportunities for their students to use computer technology to find and apply information and resources, and to apply their academic skills to solving real-world problems that are relevant to their lives (Braun & Risinger, 1999; ISTE, 1998). It has also been suggested that using computer technology enables these teachers to provide their students with more meaningful, engaging learning experiences (Dawson, Mason, Berson & Lee, 1999; Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee & Dralle, 2000; Mason & Carter, 1999). However, reminiscent of Cuban’s representation of “teachers as gatekeepers,” Harris (1998) strongly argues that whether computers, and especially the Internet, get used in the classroom is a matter of professional decision-making. She posits that using a computer is only “worth it” when it enables students to do something they could not do before or to do something they could do before, but better. Therefore, a significant difference exists between knowing the tools--knowing how to operate a computer --and using the tools--knowing how to use computers meaningfully in an educational setting. The application of technology in the classroom thus falls clearly within the teacher’s domain.

PAGE 17

6 Social Studies and Technology Use of the Internet and educational software in the social studies is heralded by many as a tool to help students gain access to authentic, primary resources that previously were available to professional scholars only (Mason & Gerler, 1998; White, 1997). Students can now become actively engaged in the process of what it is, for example, that historians do. As a result, social studies teachers are encouraged to help their students develop new modes of inquiry and become active constructors of their own knowledge (Bohan & Davis, 1998; Davis, Yeager & Foster, 2001; Dawson et al., 1999; Diem, 2000; Jonassen, 1996; Martorella, Barton & Steelman, 1991; Rice & Wilson, 1999; Risinger, 1999; White, 1996; Yeager & Davis, 1995, 1996; Yeager, Foster, Maley, Anderson & Morris, 1999). As a result, social studies teachers are encouraged to no longer be just the “the sage on stage” but also “a guide on the side” (Merryfield, 2000). Much of the recent research in the social studies has emphasized the concept of historical thinking, which can be succinctly defined as understanding the process of historical inquiry – in particular, analyzing and interpreting historical sources and drawing reasonable conclusions based on the evidence at hand (Barton & Levstik, 1996; Booth, 1993; Davis et al., 2001; Downey & Levstik, 1991; Foster, 1999; Foster, Hoge & Rosch, 1999; Levstik, 1997; Levstik & Pappas, 1992; Portal, 1987; VanSledright, 1995; VanSledright & Brophy, 1992; Wineburg, 1991a, 1991b, 1999). Defining historical understanding as “what students should know" about history, the National Center for History in the Schools defined historical thinking as “what students should be able to do to demonstrate their understandings and to apply their knowledge in productive ways” (NCHS, 1986, pp. 47-50). Much of the recent research has suggested that students of all ages are able to engage in some form of historical thinking (Ashby & Lee 1987; Barton,

PAGE 18

7 1996, 1997; Barton & Levstik, 1996; Dickinson & Lee, 1984; Downey & Levstik 1991; Foster & Yeager, 1999; Levstik, 1995; Levstik & Pappas, 1987, 1992). Researchers have also found that much of what goes on in the history classroom is focused on content knowledge rather than historical thinking skills, and that students are presented with sanitized textbook versions of history that lack multiple sources of evidence, multiple historical perspectives on events, and even information on what historical inquiry is (Davis & Klages, 1997; Foster, Morris, Davis, 1996; Levstik, 1997; Wineburg, 1991a, 1991b). Other research has clearly established that when preservice teachers are not immersed in historical thinking processes during their years in high school and college, they are not likely to model such approaches in their own classrooms (e.g., Yeager & Davis, 1995, 1996; Yeager & Wilson, 1997). Research has also shown that public school students as well as preservice teachers are often too inexperienced to know how to go about analyzing multiple historical sources and perspectives and tend to focus on which one side a particular source supports (Bohan & Davis, 1998; Doppen, 2000). Recent research has also suggested that teachers pay special attention to the concepts of historical empathy and perspective taking as part of the process of historical thinking (Davis et al., 2001). While previous research (Ashby & Lee, 1987; Portal, 1987, Shemilt, 1987) has developed several theories and meanings of historical empathy, Yeager and Foster argue that the development of historical empathy is "a considered and active process, embedded in the historical method," which involves four interrelated phases: the introduction of an historical event necessitating the analysis of human action, the understanding of historical context and chronology, the analysis of a variety of

PAGE 19

8 historical evidence and interpretations, and the construction of a narrative framework through which historical conclusions are reached (Davis et al., 2001, p. 14). Because the central aim of the historian, and perhaps the most important task in the teaching and learning of history, is "to make sense of the past" (Booth, 1993), the goal of historical empathy is to understand why people in the past did what they did, which means that students engage in “perspective taking” in order to consider the beliefs, values, and actions of historical figures (Davis et al., 2001; Ashby & Lee, 1987). Recent research points out the enormous potential of using computer technology to make the process of historical thinking and inquiry more meaningful and engaging (Crocco, 2001; Dawson et al., 1999; Hope, 1996; Mason & Gerler, 1998; Merryfield, 2000; Saye, 2000, White, 1996). While still being able to use computers for basic applications, social studies teachers’ increased access to the Internet has opened up a whole new realm of historical sources and perspectives that once were much more difficult and time-consuming to locate. Teachers are now able to engage their students in more varied activities such as, for example, accessing information from digital archives, collecting and analyzing information from databases, developing their own databases, going on virtual fieldtrips, participating in telecollaborative activities, or even creating their own virtual reality projects (Dawson & Harris, 1999; Dawson et al., 1999; Keiper, Harwood & Larson, 2000; Mason & Carter, 1999). Consequently, the diffusion of technology into the social studies classroom has the potential to profoundly change the way social studies teachers have taught history and to make it a more exciting, student-centered subject (Cuban, 1984; Davis et al., 2001; Goodlad, 1984; Schug, Todd & Beery, 1984; Shaughnessy & Halandyna, 1985).

PAGE 20

9 Statement of the Problem A breach appears to exist between what preservice teachers are taught about integrating computer technology into their classrooms and the extent to which they are actually able to do so. Little is known about how beginning social studies teachers use computers in their history courses to teach their students about historical thinking and historical inquiry, in particular perspective taking and historical empathy. While advocates of computer technology suggest that using computers in the study of history can provide students with more meaningful learning experiences, it is unclear under what conditions it is actually “worth it” within the classroom setting of a beginning social studies teacher. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the use of computer technology by beginning social studies teachers in their history courses during their first year in the classroom. Specifically, this study involved an assessment of the ability of beginning social studies teachers to use computer technology to teach their students about historical thinking and historical inquiry, in particular, the concepts of perspective taking and historical empathy. Four beginning social studies teachers were selected for this research; they will be described in a later chapter. All four were recent graduates of the secondary social studies PROTEACH program at the University of Florida, and all had completed a three-hour course on integrating technology into the social studies as part of their social studies methods fall semester block of courses. As graduate students, these beginning social studies teachers were taught how to integrate technology into the teaching of history. Furthermore, throughout the one-year PROTEACH program, which led to a master’s

PAGE 21

10 degree in social studies education, these students were strongly encouraged to emphasize such habits of mind as historical thinking and historical inquiry, especially perspective taking and historical empathy, in their future classrooms. The findings of this study will potentially help to improve understandings of how to effectively prepare preservice social studies teachers to use educational technology as a tool to enhance their students’ learning experiences by actively engaging them in historical thinking and inquiry. In addition, identifying the factors that impacted the effective use of computers in these beginning teachers’ classrooms will potentially help to clarify strategies that preservice teachers may need to acquire in order to successfully implement what they have learned in their teacher education program about how to integrate technology in the social studies classroom. Research Questions This dissertation seeks to address three major questions: (1) How well prepared was a typical beginning social studies teacher, who graduated from the ProTeach program, to use technology in his or her classroom to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking, and historical empathy? (2) How well was this beginning social studies teacher able to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking, and historical empathy? (3) How well did the infrastructure of the school in which the teacher taught enable him/her to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking, and historical empathy?

PAGE 22

11 Overview of this Dissertation Chapter 2 is a review of the literature concerning four major areas of research that are related to the classroom experiences of beginning social studies teachers. These four areas include teacher beliefs, induction into the profession, the teaching of history, and the use of technology in the social studies classroom. Chapter 3 describes the methodology that was used in this research study. It contains information about the four settings, the participants, the sampling procedures, the research design, the role of the researcher, the process used to analyze the data, and the study’s validity. Chapter 4 presents the findings of this research study. Finally, Chapter 5 consists of a discussion and summary of the study’s findings, recommendations for teaching practice, and suggestions for further study.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This review of the literature addresses four major areas of research related to the classroom experiences of beginning social studies teachers. These four areas include teacher beliefs, induction into the profession, the teaching of history, and the integration of technology in the social studies classroom. The review of the literature on teacher beliefs clarifies the factors that help to shape the ideas about teaching and learning that beginning teachers bring to the classroom. The literature on the induction of beginning teachers into the profession helps to identify issues related to formal induction programs as well as the less formal socialization process. A survey of the research on the teaching of history focuses on the specific issues and problems related to the teaching and learning of historical thinking and historical inquiry, perspective taking, and historical empathy. Finally, the literature on the integration of technology in the social studies classroom illuminates the issues surrounding the effective use of computers in the classroom by social studies teachers. Teacher Beliefs Teachers' Background The beliefs that teachers hold about the education of young children have a profound impact on what goes on in their classrooms. (Brownell, Yeager, Rennels & Riley, 1997; Cuban, 1984; Sarason, 1996, Shulman, 1987). Based on these beliefs, teachers make day-to-day decisions concerning the content they teach and the types of 12

PAGE 24

13 learning experiences their students have (Goodlad, 1984, 1990; Shaughnessy & Haladyna, 1985; Thornton, 1991; Wilson, Konopak & Readance, 1994). Therefore, it is important to consider the background of those who enter the teaching profession, as it has a profound impact on their beliefs. Many people are attracted to teaching because of its intrinsic or psychic, extrinsic, and ancillary rewards. Perhaps the most important attraction to teaching is working with and trying to reach young people (Goodlad, 1990; Lortie, 1975). Teachers perceive what they do as providing a service to society. In general, they have enjoyed their own school experience; having spent many hours watching their own elementary and secondary teachers, they wish to continue being in a school setting. Although salaries may not be competitive, many value other material benefits of teaching, such as the health insurance and job security it has to offer, as well as the time schedule and vacation periods (Goodlad, 1984; Lortie, 1975). Goodlad (1990) has found that many who choose to become a teacher experience strong pressures from parents, peers, teachers, and even professors not to do so. Studies have shown that most students in teacher education programs come from the immediate surrounding area, which lends teaching a local character (Goodlad, 1990; Leming, 1991). Many teachers also tend to come from families in which a parent works or worked as a teacher. In a survey of nearly 3,000 students, Goodlad (1990) found that one in five had a mother and one in ten had a father who had been or still was a teacher. Leming (1991) studied the specific characteristics of social studies teachers, finding that they differ little from other teachers. They are predominantly white, mostly male at the high school level, married, from middle-class backgrounds, working close to their

PAGE 25

14 family homes, and are stable in terms of their professional mobility. Leming argues that these characteristics suggest that social studies teachers are likely to embrace the values of the local community and transmit those values through their teaching. Unlike social reconstructionists such as Apple, Giroux and McLaren, most social studies teachers tend to maintain the status quo and to help socialize their students into community values (Leming, 1991; Lortie, 1975). Teachers' Pragmatism According to the research literature, teachers tend to be rather conservative. Goodlad (1990) has argued that while some teachers profess a deep interest in the subject as a reason to become a teacher (more often at the secondary level than at the elementary level), he rarely formed the impression that becoming an educated person was a powerful reason for choosing to teach. Likewise, Sarason (1996) has argued that the daily regularities of teaching lead to such a sense of boredom and mundane routine that teachers no longer see the school as an intellectual community in which they can look forward to growth and change. This anti-intellectualism among teachers appears to be confirmed by Goodlad’s (1984) observations of more than 1,000 classrooms in which the teacher either stood or sat in front of the classroom lecturing to the students, whose passive role usually consisted of either completing written assignments or listening to the teacher. Comparing teachers to the “unruffled calm” on the bottom of the ocean while at the surface “hurricane winds sweep across the sea tossing up twenty-foot waves,” Cuban, 1984, p. 2) has suggested a model of the teacher as a force against change. He argues that schools represent a form of social control and sorting in which deeply entrenched beliefs about what constitutes appropriate teaching have traditionally limited the power of

PAGE 26

15 teachers to make decisions about instructional practices. Furthermore, structural constraints have driven teachers into adopting instructional practices that have changed little over time. As a result, student-centered approaches have historically lost out to more traditional, teacher-centered approaches. The culture of teaching itself tilts towards stability and a reluctance to embrace change, as the very people who are recruited into the profession are already favorably disposed towards schools (Cuban, 1984). Most teachers also believe that school is a place where knowledge must be transmitted, where students must develop their minds and learn social values, and where learning best takes place in a tranquil, teacher-centered classroom (Cuban, 1984). Furthermore, when reform efforts aimed at changing teacher beliefs about instructional practices have been attempted, these have often met with failure due to ill-conceived implementation strategies. In particular, many teachers have often failed to change their beliefs because reforms were imposed on them from the top down without their input (Cuban, 1984; Hargreaves, 1995). As reformers failed to realize that there is a profound difference between changing external and structural conditions and trying to substantively improve classroom teaching, teachers simply have continued doing things the same way they already were (Cuban, 1984). Guided by a “practicality ethic” (Cuban, 1984, p. 67), teachers have historically played the role of gatekeepers to their classrooms (Cuban, 1986; Hargreaves, 1995; Thornton, 1991). As Sarason (1996) has pointed out, teachers often face the complex task of teaching a classroom of twenty-five or more children. This task requires a teacher to give a lot of himself or herself, both intellectually and emotionally. While this is perhaps not a particular problem for the beginning teacher, it often becomes more draining in

PAGE 27

16 future years (Sarason, 1996). Because of the large size of their classes and the constant and multiple demands on their time and energy, teachers in general, and beginning teachers in particular, tend to place great emphasis on the practical concern of classroom control (Sarason, 1996). As a result, life in the classroom is a reflection of what they believe about children and their own role, and what can be openly observed in the classroom actually reflects the covert beliefs that teachers hold about classroom control. Short & Short (1989) have suggested that teacher control beliefs vary along a continuum from a more custodial to a more humanistic perspective. Custodial teachers believe that students must learn to conform to organizational norms and rules and tend to perceive violations of those norms as behavior problems. Humanistic teachers, on the other hand, tend to view such behaviors as attempts to discover one’s personal identity and as an opportunity for growth. Therefore, more humanistic teachers tend to favor interventions involving communication and negotiation, whereas more custodial teachers favor punitive or controlling strategies. Focusing specifically on social studies teachers, Thornton (1991) has argued that they generally have an ideal of what they want to accomplish. Yet, social studies teachers also often act as gatekeepers, as they disregard their beliefs about what social studies should be in favor of what they believe can actually be accomplished with a particular group of students. Some teachers, he maintains, even go as far as simplifying the content of their courses and reducing the demands on their students in return for order in the classroom. The practicality ethic may often lead social studies teachers to equate their curriculum with covering the content of their textbook. As a result, social studies

PAGE 28

17 classrooms may be devoid of intellectual inquiry and controversy, and the teachers may seem uncertain about the purposes of their curriculum (Goodlad, 1984; Sarason, 1996; Thornton, 1991). They tend to focus on covering "the facts" and developing their students’ basic reading and writing skills, rather than on modeling thoughtfulness and promoting higher order thinking skills (Onosko, 1989, 1990, 1992). In addition, they deem the socialization of their students into community values even more important than teaching them content knowledge (Thornton, 1991). Thornton (1991), unlike Cuban (1984), has argued that most teachers actually do have a great deal of freedom to define social studies as they see fit. However, in recent years teacher control over the content of their courses, including the social studies, has been significantly restricted by the fact that nearly all states have now adopted mandatory state curriculum standards and high-stakes student achievement tests (Doppen & Yeager, 1997). Observing a veteran social studies teacher, Cornett (1990) discerned a tension between her practice and her belief frameworks, depending on the curriculum-in-use and other factors such as student interest, time during the semester, current events, or school-sponsored interruptions. Her classroom teaching reflected a continuous struggle to balance content and social skills. Interestingly, while her general beliefs about teaching and learning rested on an unshakable foundation of positive regard for others, her social studies beliefs about teaching students to become responsible and informed members of society were of secondary importance only. Shulman (1986) has referred to the focus on general pedagogical rather than subject-specific goals as the missing paradigm. Questioning a false dichotomy between content and pedagogy, he developed the concept of pedagogical content knowledge.

PAGE 29

18 Rejecting George Bernard Shaw’s aphorism that “he who can, does; he who cannot, teaches” (cited in Shulman, 1986, p. 4), Shulman (1986) agrees with Aristotle that “what distinguishes the man who knows from the ignorant man is the ability to teach” (p. 7). The teacher must be capable of using many different forms of representation, “some of which derive from research, whereas others originate in the wisdom of practice” (p. 9; see also Wineburg & Wilson, 1988, 1991). Therefore, the effective teacher knows how to blend “content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). Consequently, pedagogical content knowledge is ultimately based on a teacher’s beliefs about what his or her students must learn and how it should be taught (Cuban, 1987). Teacher Preparation The development of pedagogical content knowledge, the special blend of knowing one’s subject matter as well as how to teach it effectively, has been the central purpose of many teacher education programs. These programs seek to prepare their students to become effective teachers within their respective disciplines and tacitly rest on the premise that it is possible to influence preservice teachers’ beliefs about classroom practice (Adler, 1991; Armento, 1996; Borko & Putnam, 1995; Brownell et al. 1997; Featherstone, 1992; Johnston, 1990; Owens, 1997). Beliefs about teaching in general, and social studies in particular, however, have tended to demonstrate little change over the course of an entire teacher preparation program (Armento, 1996). Individuals do not come to teaching tabula rasa (Adler, 1991) but bring with them background experiences and beliefs they have developed based upon

PAGE 30

19 those experiences (Adler, 1991; Owens, 1997). Often these beliefs have been shaped by childhood experiences and the influence of significant individuals (Armento, 1996). Through their methods courses and field experiences, preservice teachers appear to at least partially change their beliefs (Featherstone, 1992; Johnston, 1990). However, their receptivity to new ideas appears to largely depend on to what degree these overlap with and confirm their preexisting beliefs. Especially when they experience cognitive dissonance, their willingness to consider changing preexisting beliefs becomes minimal (Angell, 1996). Field experiences, including practicums and internships, are often held to be the most profound and formative aspect of a teacher preparation program (Featherstone, 1992). Often, preservice teachers’ beliefs quickly tend to become constrained by the institutional expectations of the school where they have their first classroom experiences (Adler & Confer, 1998; Armento, 1996; Johnston, 1990). Inspired by their teacher preparation program with new ideas and beliefs about how to teach their respective disciplines, but concerned also with impressing their directing teacher, preservice teachers often quickly begin to teach in a manner consistent with the directing teacher’s more conservative expectations (Adler & Confer, 1998; Cuban, 1997; Johnston, 1990; Owens, 1997; Wilson et al., 1994). While some researchers focus on the influence of teacher education programs on teachers’ beliefs (Adler, 1991; Armento, 1996; Borko & Putnam, 1995; Brownell et al. 1997; Johnston, 1990; Owens, 1997), others argue that the experiences a teacher has during the first year in the classroom also have a profound and lasting impact Featherstone, 1992; Guskey, 1986; Hargreaves, 1995). Especially during the first year, as

PAGE 31

20 they struggle to survive, beginning teachers learn to clarify their personal beliefs. Through not only their pedagogical struggles, but also their own emotional responses to what they experience, they gain a deeper understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses and the factors that impact their teaching. The self-knowledge that beginning teachers gain from the struggle to understand who they are, and their reflection on their classroom experiences, are perhaps the greatest benefits of their early teaching years (Featherstone, 1992, Hargreaves, 1995). This newly gained self-knowledge not only helps beginning teachers to clarify their beliefs, but also to change them. Consequently, the early years of beginning teachers constitute an interactive process between their preexisting beliefs and their actual experiences in the classroom (Guskey, 1986), as they “like the rest of us, learn from experience what their past experience has prepared them to learn” (Featherstone, 1992, p. 17). Summary Teacher beliefs about how to teach and what children need to learn have a profound impact on what goes on in their classrooms (Brownell et al., 1997; Cuban, 1984; Sarason, 1996, Shulman, 1987). Historically, teachers come from somewhat conservative backgrounds that tend to favor the status quo (Goodlad, 1990; Leming 1991; Lortie, 1975; Sarason, 1996). Because of this background as well as other structural constraints historically imposed by society on the schools, teachers have often put themselves in the role of gatekeepers by resisting change (Cuban, 1984; Sarason, 1996; Thornton, 1991). While teacher education programs appear to have at least some influence on their students' beliefs (Featherstone, 1992, Johnston, 1990), the practicality ethic that preservice teachers and beginning teachers adopt in the schools often quickly causes them to give up on new approaches to instruction (Adler & Confer, 1998; Armento, 1996;

PAGE 32

21 Cuban, 1984; Johnston, 1990). However, teacher education programs do have the opportunity to prepare future teachers to continuously reflect on their classroom experiences and to reassess the very beliefs that guide their teaching practices. Teacher Induction Theoretical Framework The transition from preservice teacher to beginning teacher is sudden and dramatic (Bolam, 1987). Having left the supportive environment of the teacher education program behind, beginning teachers are thrown directly into a situation in which they are confronted with many profound changes in both their professional and personal lives (Bolam, 1987; Gold & Roth, 1993). In their professional lives, they are often challenged to “sink or swim” as they assume the same responsibilities as an experienced teacher (Danielson, 1999; Lawson, 1992; Robinson, 1998). Many beginning teachers also start their careers in disadvantaged schools, or they may be assigned the heaviest teaching load, multiple preparations, the least “desirable” classes, and/or the greatest number of extracurricular duties (Basinger, 2000; Chapman & Green, 1986; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Lawson, 1992; Huling-Austin, 1992; Tellez, 1992). In addition, they often receive few instructional resources and little support (Darling-Hammond, 1998). According to some, the practice of giving beginning teachers the most demanding assignments is an outcome of the prevailing factory model of schooling, in which teachers are perceived as interchangeable rather than as professionals whose talents and skills must be continually refreshed (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Lawson, 1992). Accompanying these changes in their professional lives are significant changes in their personal lives. Often they have to adjust to living in a new place, commute long distances to work, cope with fatigue, and learn to live on a low salary. In addition, some

PAGE 33

22 get married or start a family, whereas others must cope with the isolation of teaching (Bolam, 1987; Gold & Roth, 1993). As a result of these stressful life changes, or “hazing” as some call it (Darling-Hammond, 1998), many beginning teachers choose to leave the profession relatively soon (Danielson, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1996, Gold, 1996). It is through this demanding process that the beginning teacher is inducted into the teaching profession and into his or her subject-area subculture, and learns to accept its dominant definitions of appropriate language, norms, missions, knowledge, technology, and ideology (Lawson, 1992; Zeichner & Gore, 1990). As such, induction is the result of a process known as professional socialization. Teacher socialization is not simply a linear transition from one role to another, but rather a contradictory and dialectical, collective and individual, formal and informal developmental process that involves complex interactions between and among prospective and experienced teachers, and the broader institutional, social, cultural, and historical settings in which they find themselves (Goodlad, 1990; Lawson, 1992; Serpell, 2000, Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Consequently, teacher socialization includes the beliefs that teachers have developed as a result of their own schooling and preservice experiences. While some argue to reserve the concept of induction for “the continuous development and expression of professional norms and identities and forms of technical and adaptive competence” (Lawson, 1992, p. 170), others refer to it as a “planned program intended to provide some systematic and sustained assistance, specifically to beginning teachers, for at least one school year” (Huling-Austin, 1990, p. 536). Much of

PAGE 34

23 the research on teacher induction has focused on the difficulties of beginning teachers and on assistance and assessment programs for beginning teachers (Huling-Austin, 1992). According to Huling-Austin (1990), most induction programs seek to improve teaching performance, increase teacher retention, promote the professional and personal well-being of beginning teachers, satisfy mandated requirements related to induction and certification, as well as transmit the culture of teaching. Consequently, teacher induction programs are based on the concept that novice teachers differ from expert teachers and may in fact benefit from a support structure (Lawson, 1992). Reviewing the research literature on beginning teacher induction, and perhaps resolving its current semantic controversy, Serpell (2000) recently defined the concept as a “helping mechanism for beginning teachers” to socialize them into the school culture, improve teaching skills, resolve concerns, ensure professional development, increase retention, and satisfy mandated requirements related to induction and certification (p. 2). According to Serpell, the goals of induction programs include providing technical training to ensure that beginning teachers are professionally equipped to teach, socializing beginning teachers so that they are integrated into the school community and culture, and fostering teacher development, which includes support for specific concerns. In any event, while induction generally continues to be examined within the context of a specific support program for beginning teachers, it must also be examined in broader developmental terms. Attrition And Retention Attrition, or teachers leaving the profession, continues to be a major concern in education. According to Quality Counts 2000, the fourth annual 50-state report by Education Week, more than 20 percent of new teachers leave the profession within the

PAGE 35

24 first three years (L. Olson, 2000). Others report that of all new teachers, 30 percent “walk away” after just one year (Brunetti, 1998), and as many as half within five years (Basinger, 2000). As measured by their college exams, a standard rejected by some (Berliner & Biddle, 1995), not only is it the less academically able who choose to become teachers, it is the brightest among them who are the most likely to leave teaching early (L. Olson, 2000). To make this picture even worse, nearly half of all college graduates who prepare to teach in a K-12 school never do so, while more than one-fourth of all teachers who do enter the profession fail to fully meet state licensing standards (L. Olson, 2000). As a result of these alarming statistics, teacher quality continues to be the main focus of efforts to recruit and retain teachers. By providing a supportive environment, effective teacher induction programs seek to mitigate the concerns beginning teachers may experience (Basinger, 2000). To support new teachers, 28 states now require or encourage school districts to create induction or mentoring programs. However, currently only 19 states mandate that districts offer such programs, while only 10 provide full or partial funding (L. Olson, 2000). According to some researchers, initial commitment to teaching is the single strongest predictor of retention (Chapman, 1984; Chapman & Green, 1986). Gold (1996), however, has argued that initial teaching experiences especially are “imprinted” (p. 548), and that they anchor the perceptions and behaviors that teachers develop with regard to their role and the way they perceive their students and school environment. Consequently, the early support that new teachers experience can have a long-term

PAGE 36

25 impact on whether they stay in the profession (Chapman, 1984; Chapman & Green, 1986). Fuller (1969) articulated a developmental conceptualization of teacher concerns in which she distinguished three phases: a pre-teaching phase, an early teaching phase, and a late teaching phase. These phases are characterized by a shift from being concerned and worried about one’s own survival to a primary focus on student learning (Fuller, 1969, Goodlad, 1990, Halford, 1998). Lieberman & Miller (1999) argue that teachers go through career stages in much the same way as men and women pass through life stages. Shifting from a focus on self to a focus on others by learning to reflect on how one’s teaching impacts student learning, and thus making the necessary adjustments, is viewed as an essential ingredient of teacher growth (Barth, 1990; Goodlad, 1990; Guskey, 1986; Lieberman & Miller, 1999). Professional Concerns Beginning teachers face a wide array of professional concerns about their students and their ability to teach, as well as about how to maintain discipline and cope with isolation, lack of support, critical parents, and inadequate salaries. They often experience disappointment as they enter the classroom with unrealistic expectations. As a result, they experience a mismatch between their expectations and the reality of life in the classroom (Farber, 1991; Gold, 1996; Gold & Roth, 1993). They may be faced with a large number of issues that they did not expect or may not know how to handle. Many are forced to cope with large, overcrowded classes (Farber, 1991; Sarason, 1996) and lack of knowledge about their students’ abilities (Bolam, 1987). In addition, they may face a wide range of ability levels among their students (Bolam, 1987), especially when they

PAGE 37

26 encounter mainstreamed students with special needs in their regular classes (Brownell et al., 1997; Farber, 1991). Sometimes beginning teachers find that their teacher preparation program and preservice teaching experiences have not adequately prepared them to teach, and that they do not know how to effectively use specific instructional strategies or organize their instruction (Bolam, 1987; Borich, 2000; Farber, 1991; L. Olson, 2000). They may even have to teach a class whose content they have not studied sufficiently (Robinson, 1998). At another level, they are often still unfamiliar with the myriad routines and procedures that make up much of a teacher’s responsibilities (Robinson, 1998). As a result, they often do not know how to organize their classrooms and set the tone for learning, which only contributes to a greater lack of efficacy (Farber, 1991; Robinson, 1998). Not only do beginning teachers have to learn how to use effective instructional strategies, many of their early concerns are also focused on maintaining student discipline (Gold, 1996; Gold & Roth, 1993; L. Olson, 2000). While discipline issues may present themselves in the form of disruptive or even violent students, they likewise do so when students are apathetic or simply inattentive (Farber, 1991; Sarason, 1996). Another aspect of discipline that is often difficult for new teachers is learning to control their own anger and not become emotional in the face of conflict with students (Farber, 1991). The beginning teacher’s professional concerns about survival are further aggravated by the isolation in which they usually find themselves, especially once they close the door to their own classroom (Farber, 1991; Gold, 1996). In such a “balkanized” culture (Browning et al., 1997), teachers in general, and beginning teachers in particular, lack the support of a social and professional network (Chapman, 1984; Tellez, 1992), and

PAGE 38

27 1967even when they do collaborate with their colleagues, it is often contrived and even mandatory (Browning et al., 1997). Sometimes beginning teachers also become so burdened with their heavy workload, especially in having to develop their own curriculum for the first time, that they rarely go out for social events, even though attendance at school-sponsored events or other community events might actually enhance their visibility as well as help to build support in the community (Gold & Roth, 1993; Robinson, 1998). Poor administrative support often further contributes to the isolation that beginning teachers experience (L. Olson, 2000). While sometimes the actual physical condition of the school building may leave much to be desired (Farber, 1991; Kozol, 1967, 1991, 1995, 2000), sometimes it is the culture of the school that is lacking--for example, the school culture may foster a curriculum of low expectations (Zeichner & Gore, 1990), or there may be subcultures among some of the faculty that thrive on negativity (Farber, 1991). Even when support is available, beginning teachers often seem reluctant to seek help out of fear of embarrassment (Tellez, 1992). Considering that the beginning teaching experience is emotionally draining--even more so when stress is unmitigated due to a lack of support (Farber, 1991; Sarason, 1996)--some teachers simply burn out as they become overworked and exhausted (Barth, 1990; Farber, 1991; Gold & Roth, 1993). Another area of concern for beginning teachers is the public, and they often cite a lack of parental support in particular (Gold, 1996; Zeichner & Gore, 1990). The two major kinds of parents that beginning teachers often face tend to be either those who are unreasonable or those who are unconcerned, which the teachers may interpret as a lack of public respect for the teaching profession (Farber, 1991). In addition, as a consequence of

PAGE 39

28 public criticism of the public schools, the demand for accountability has become increasingly intrusive, with curriculum standards and high stakes achievement tests constraining teacher autonomy (Doppen & Yeager, 1997, Farber, 1991). Although financial compensation is a maintenance factor rather than a motivation factor (Hershey & Blanchard, 1993), it does matter a great deal when beginning teachers begin to perceive their salaries as inadequate (Farber, 1991; Gold, 1996; Sarason, 1996). Combined with the prospect of a lack of mobility and promotion opportunities, the salary issue results in the departure of many teachers from the profession (Farber, 1991; Gold, 1996). Murmane & Olsen (1990) found that salaries have an important impact on the length of stay in teaching, that beginning teachers who are paid more stay longer, that teachers with high opportunity costs have shorter spells of teaching, and that teachers with high teacher test scores are less influenced by salary increases than those who score lower. Personal Concerns Not only do beginning teachers face many professional concerns, they also experience many significant issues in their own personal lives that may have a profound impact on their teaching. These concerns often result from personal characteristics and how well they are able to adjust to living in a new location, as well as their transition into the world of full-time teaching. To understand why beginning teachers decide to persist in or leave teaching is in part determined by their personal characteristics. Their initial commitment to becoming a teacher has been found to be the single strongest predictor of whether they stay (Chapman, 1984). This, in turn, has been found to be related to the satisfaction they derive from their careers (Chapman, 1984). Because they have something to lose,

PAGE 40

29 teachers who are idealistic and enthusiastic appear to be the most vulnerable to feelings of inefficacy, inconsequentiality, and, ultimately, burnout (Gold, 1996; Farber, 1991). Such feelings may be aggravated by other significant life-changing events such as getting married, becoming a parent, or experiencing the death of a loved one (Farber, 1991). Demographic factors are also significant, as burnout is more likely to occur among men, those under forty, middle and high school teachers, unmarried teachers, and those teaching in large urban schools (Farber, 1991). Beginning teachers also often face important changes in their personal responsibilities as they adjust to new accommodations and lifestyles as well as a new community in which to live. Having left behind a familiar environment, they now have to build a new social network (Bolam, 1987; Gold, 1996). When they are having difficulty doing so, not only do they experience isolation at work but also loneliness in their personal lives (Bolam, 1987). Further, depending on where they live, beginning teachers may have to commute long distances to work (Bolam, 1997). Especially when faced with a heavy teaching load and a lack of support at work, many beginning teachers may experience profound physical fatigue, making them especially vulnerable to physical health problems (Bolam, 1987; Farber, 1991; Gold, 1996; Gold & Roth, 1993). When teachers reach a stage of physical and emotional exhaustion, brought on by working too intensely and without regard for their own personal needs, they simply give up (Farber, 1991; Gold, 1996). Many beginning teachers also experience financial worries as they try to get by on an inadequate salary (Bolam, 1987; Gold, 1986). They may begin to realize that their finances not only affect their living conditions but their recreational

PAGE 41

30 opportunities as well. Even being able to own their own home and support a family are questionable issues for most beginning teachers (Gold & Roth, 1993). Beginning Teacher Support To alleviate beginning teachers’ concerns, school systems may provide both formal and informal support systems. These support systems, which address both the instructional and psychological needs of beginning teachers (Gold, 1996), usually take the form of a formal teacher induction program (Huling-Austin, 1992). Unfortunately, some argue, the most common mistakes in inducting new employees occur before the first day, and it has been suggested that teachers be provided with an advance induction to smooth their transition into the workplace (Robinson, 1998). Others argue that new teachers should not simply be told “where the keys and what the procedures are” but instead participate in an orientation program during which they can begin to discuss their school’s mission and vision (Halford, 1998). In most instances, during their first year, beginning teachers are placed in a formal teacher induction program (Basinger, 2000; Furtwengler, 1995; Olebe, Jackson & Danielson, 1999). Such a program generally serves to help beginning teachers improve both their general and their subject-specific teaching skills (Serpell, 2000; Shulman, 1986, 1987), and to socialize them into the school culture (Serpell, 2000). In an effort to help beginning teachers to learn “outside” as well as “inside” knowledge (Lieberman & Miller, 1999), some of the more innovative induction programs have established multi-year partnerships with local colleges of education (Basinger, 2000; Brunetti, 1998; Taylor, 2000). A trained mentor, usually an experienced teacher who has been granted release time from his or her teaching responsibilities, is at the heart of most teacher induction

PAGE 42

31 programs (Basinger, 2000; Bolam, 1987; Gold, 1996; Halford, 1998; Huling-Austin, 1992; Olebe et al., 1999; Robinson, 1998; Serpell, 2000; Tellez, 1992). An indication of administrative support for beginning teachers (Bolam, 1987; Chapman & Green, 1986; Serpell, 2000; Tellez, 1992), much like the manner in which Mentor guided Telemachus, is designating teacher mentors to provide school-based support for beginning teachers, as well as sometimes providing them with an opportunity to share their experiences with other beginning teachers (Bolam, 1987; Huling-Austin, 1992; Robinson, 1998). Another important component of most effective teacher induction programs is to help beginning teachers become reflective practitioners (Borko & Putnam, 1995). Increasingly, teacher induction programs are perceived as the beginning of an ongoing, continuous, long-term professional development process in which the school serves as a center of learning and reflection (Brownell et al., 1997; Barth, 1990; Darling-Hammond, 1996, 1998; Halford, 1998; Lieberman & Miller, 1999; Sarason, 1996). By being involved in such a professional development model, which is based on the idea of “growth-in-practice” rather than “bite-sized” pieces (Lieberman, 1995, pp. 591-592), as well as engaging in school-based inquiry and action research to reflect on their own teaching, beginning teachers can learn to become increasingly effective (Darling-Hammond, 1996, Guskey, 1986). Contrary to what most advocates of teacher induction programs believe their purpose to be, sometimes they are used as part of a formal evaluation process (Olebe et al, 1999), or for certification purposes (Furtwengler, 1995; Serpell, 2000), rather than for formative assessment. For example, in Florida, beginning teachers are now enrolled in local teacher induction programs. While no longer funding these programs, the state still

PAGE 43

32 requires each local school district to develop a state-approved system for demonstration of Professional Education Competence. Thus, each local school district now has the discretion to use the Professional Education Competence program to evaluate its beginning teachers (Florida Department of Education, 2001). While most school districts offer formal support through a teacher induction program, beginning teachers may also be able to benefit from an informal support system. Regardless of whether they are formally assigned a mentor, beginning teachers often seek help from experienced teachers they perceive as friendly and caring (Tellez, 1992). Another source of support for beginning teachers can be participation in school and community events such as coaching a school team, attending a sporting event, or chaperoning a school dance. Such altruism, which is often expected from beginning teachers, may well help them gain important support within the school’s extended community (Robinson, 1998). In their search for informal support, however, beginning teachers may sometimes find themselves surrounded by colleagues who spend their time denigrating students, complaining about administrators, regretting their choice of career, and planning how to leave the profession (Farber, 1991). While such an informal support network may perhaps provide beginning teachers with an initial sense of belonging, it likely does little in the long term to affirm their choice of having become a teacher. Interestingly, beginning teachers seek help more often when they are assigned a mentor (Tellez, 1992). For example, Klug & Salzman (1991) found that beginning teachers who participated in a more informal “buddy system” reported that the program lacked structure and was confusing for both the novice and mentor teachers, while a

PAGE 44

33 structured induction program with delineated goals and expectations, and opportunities for formal observation and feedback, was viewed as more successful. However, while many beginning teachers profess to benefit from a formal induction program, not all beginning teachers are satisfied with their mentors (Tellez, 1992), and thus for them, an informal support system may make all the difference in their decision to stay in or leave the teaching profession. Summary The transition from preservice teacher to beginning teacher is sudden and dramatic (Bolam, 1987). Beginning teachers are often confronted with so many professional and personal changes that a large number of them decide to leave the profession within a few years (Basinger, 2000; Bolam, 1987; Brunetti, 1998; Danielson, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Gold, 1996; Gold & Roth, 1993; Goodlad, 1990; L. Olson, 2000). In their efforts to retain teachers, most school districts now offer induction programs that are specifically designed to support beginning teachers as they try to survive their first year (Basinger, 2000; Furtwengler, 1995; Olebe et al., 1999; Serpell, 2000). Yet while teacher induction programs have traditionally been perceived as specifically designed to help beginning teachers survive (Huling-Austin, 1992), they must also be understood within the broader context of professional socialization that precedes as well as continues after the first year of teaching (Adler, 1991; Goodlad, 1990; Lawson, 1992; Serpell, 2000; Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Ultimately, a teacher can be said to have been successfully inducted into the profession once he or she assimilates its dominant culture (Goodlad, 1990; Lawson, 1992; Serpell, 2000; Zeichner & Gore, 1990).

PAGE 45

34 Teaching History Historical Background More than a decade ago, researchers documented that elementary and secondary students found social studies uninteresting because they failed to see the relevance of the subject to their own lives. They found it boring, too detailed, and redundant (Schug, Todd & Beery, 1984; Shaughnessy & Haladyna, 1985). Classroom activities generally involved listening to teachers, reading textbooks, completing worksheets, and taking quizzes. Tests, usually in the form of multiple choice, true or false, matching, and filling in the blanks, rarely required more than recalling memorized facts (Goodlad, 1984). Some researchers have even argued that American society has little sense of the past and that the study of history is hampered by a cultural lack of interest (Downey & Levstik, 1988; Levstik 1997). At about the same time, the development of national curriculum standards for history and social studies helped begin to point the field in a new direction. The controversy that arose after the publication of national curriculum standards for history centered on the question of how to find an appropriate balance between content knowledge and process skills (VanSledright, 1996). The debate over the need for a national curriculum had already reemerged to the forefront of public attention in 1983 with the release of A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. In its report, the Commission argued that, “if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (p. 5). The report recommended, among other things, “more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for

PAGE 46

35 academic performance and student conduct, and that four-year colleges and universities raise their requirements for admission” (p. 27). Then, in 1990, having during the previous year convened an education summit in Charlottesville, Virginia, President George Bush announced the National Education Goals in his State of the Union address. Especially significant was Goal 3, which stated that “by the year 2000, American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy” (quoted in Doppen & Yeager, 1998, p. 166). As a result of these developments, when President Bill Clinton signed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act on March 31, 1994, the National Education Goals not only included competency in English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, but also foreign languages, civics and government, economics, and the arts (United States Department of Education, 1994). The U. S. National History Project was organized in the spring of 1992 at the National Center for History in the Schools (NCHS) at the University of California at Los Angeles. Its first report, the National Standards for History (1994), caused an immediate uproar among conservative critics who claimed that the standards underemphasized “traditional” factual historical content as well as the positive aspects of American achievement, and overemphasized pessimistic, “revisionist” interpretations of the American past (Doppen & Yeager, 1998). As the standards movement originally only focused on history and geography, the National Council for the Social Studies

PAGE 47

36 successfully annexed social studies to the national agenda by issuing its own report, Expectations of Excellence (1994). According to Expectations of Excellence (1994), social studies is “the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence, and draws upon such disciplines as anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences” (p. vii). The report describes as especially significant the mission to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. To make social studies teaching and learning powerful, the report argues, it must be “meaningful, integrative, value-based, challenging and active” (pp. 11-12). Consequently, each curriculum standard--a statement of what content should be taught as well as its purpose--is accompanied by a number of performance expectations, or statements of the knowledge, skills, scholarly perspectives, and commitment to American democratic ideals that students should be able to exhibit. This significant shift to a more process-oriented approach to the social studies can also be found in the National Standards for History (1994). This report defines history as “a process of reasoning based on evidence from the past” that “must be grounded in the careful gathering, weighing and sifting of factual information such as names, dates, places, ideas, and events” (p. 49). It argues that the study of history is important because it is “the key to self-identity, to seeing one’s place in the stream of time, and one’s connectedness with all of humankind” (p. 1). Importantly, the report distinguishes

PAGE 48

37 between historical thinking skills and historical understandings. Whereas historical understandings refer to what students should know about history, historical thinking skills refer to a student’s abilities in the areas of chronological thinking, historical comprehension, historical analysis and interpretation, historical research capabilities, and historical issues-analysis and decision-making. Furthermore, research on the teaching and learning of history has increasingly emphasized the active engagement of students in the process of historical inquiry or “doing history,” which constitutes perhaps the most exciting and productive aspect of historical thinking (Levstik & Barton, 1997; NCHS, 1996). Historical Thinking In recent decades much of the research on historical thinking has focused on Piaget's model of developmental stages. Building upon Piaget’s research, Hallam (1969) suggested that students do not reach the stage of formal operational thinking until the mental age of 16.5 years. However, Booth (1980, 1987, 1993) has argued that Piaget’s theory has constrained the history curriculum, and he rejects Hallam's findings as “depressing for history teachers.” Instead, he contends that historical understanding can be considered on its own terms and strongly resists any model of the development of children's thinking that is allied tightly to ages and stages because it limits expectations of what children can do. According to Booth, history is an adductive process in which virtually any fourto sixteen-year old student can ask an open-ended question about past events and find satisfactory answers (Booth, 1980). Others likewise describe history not as an alienated body of facts but rather as a process of constructing, reconstructing, and interpreting past events and making them meaningful to one’s own life (Doppen, 1999; Leinhardt, Stainton & Virji, 1994; Seixas, 1994, 1997).

PAGE 49

38 Supporting Booth's research, others have argued that there is no evidence to indicate that delaying instruction in history is developmentally appropriate (Downey & Levstik, 1988). Some have argued that even less capable students are at times able to demonstrate historical understanding (Ashby & Lee, 1987), and that the acquisition of historical understanding is in fact a domain-specific learning process not based on age (Dickinson & Lee, 1984; Downey & Levstik 1991; Levstik & Pappas 1992; Thornton & Vukelich, 1988). Congruent with this revised perception of historical understanding, Shemilt (1987) developed an early model of adolescents’ ideas about evidence and methodology in history, which consists of four stages in which students, regardless of age, progress from believing that “what the teacher says is true” (p. 42) to understanding that history is “no more than a reconstruction of past events” (p. 56). Research on historical thinking among young children has found that even the youngest children, while prone to presentism-the act of viewing the past through the lens of the present (Wineburg, 1999)--are able to make basic distinctions in historical time (Barton & Levstik, 1996; Brophy & VanSledright, 1997). According to Barton (1997), kindergartners have some accurate ideas about how life was different in the past. Children, even as early as second grade, are able to distinguish history as something from the past worth remembering or knowing (Levstik & Pappas, 1987). Especially when young children study social history and are allowed to draw upon familiar sources of information, such as family members, visual images, and tangible objects, they tend to understand history better than when its focus is on institutional developments (Barton, 1997). Before the third grade, however, dates have little meaning for children, as they are only able to distinguish between “long ago” and “close to now” (Barton & Levstik,

PAGE 50

39 1996). By third and fourth grade, students understand the numerical basis of dates, and are able to distinguish three to five different periods of time, but only by fifth grade are students able to extensively connect particular dates with specific background knowledge (Barton, 1996; Barton & Levstik, 1996). Levstik and Pappas (1987) found that fourth and sixth grade children developed an understanding of history as a specifically human condition, were able to decide whether something is important enough to be history, and could comprehend that subsequent events can turn the past into history. In addition, Barton (1996) found that fourth and fifth graders tended to think about historical changes as having come about for purely logical and rational reasons. They tended to place all historical developments into a linear and uniform sequence of progress, and collapsed the past into a minimal number of people and events characterized by only one image, each of which stands in a definite temporal order (Barton, 1996; Barton & Levstik, 1996). VanSledright and Brophy (1992) found that while fourth graders still mixed accurate historical information with nave conceptions and imaginative elaborations, fifth graders tended to base their historical accounts more on evidence. And in another study among fifth graders, Levstik and Barton (1996) found that while historical photographs could be used to help children make sense of specific eras, events, and relationships that allowed them to make more discipline-based interpretations, they continued nonetheless to be uncritical of the veracity of the pictures. In their research among elementary, middle and high school students, Foster, Hoge & Rosch (1999) found that sixth graders exhibited an increased capacity to note historical themes and draw on prior historical knowledge to supply dates and make inferences.

PAGE 51

40 They found that students at this level, when examining historical photographs, were much more apt to note the technology, architecture, or fashion and combine it with some historical knowledge to arrive at a date. They also recognized that photographers may have had a reason for taking a particular picture. However, while Levstik (1995) similarly found in her research that sixth graders were spontaneously skeptical of their social studies text and were able to recognize that another perspective could have been presented, she also found that teacher intervention is still needed to lead children to consider alternative interpretations. In a comparable study among 12-year-old students in England, Foster and Yeager (1999) found that the students, who at this age in most of the United States would be in middle school, often approached the study of history with enthusiasm and a healthy skepticism, yet needed help in applying their knowledge of history to the specifics of evidence and interpretation. Furthermore, in his research of an eighth grade American history course, VanSledright (1995) found that students “doing history” tended to stumble over “too many details,” failed to make connections, and only partially formed their ideas (p. 334). Foster et al. (1999) found that ninth grade students showed a marked increase in their ability to date photographs accurately and that most were able to cite multiple clues in formulating their responses, including those based on a wide variety of prior historical knowledge. Also, Grant’s (2001) study on how teachers and students collaboratively negotiated the terrain of historical understanding in a high school U. S. history class found that students were more likely to see a connection between the past and their lives today when they were not provided with a single interpretative framework but rather were allowed to construct their own interpretations.

PAGE 52

41 Finally, with regard to history teachers and historical thinking, a study by Yeager & Davis (1996) with 15 secondary history teachers found that none could recall any explicit attention in their college history courses to aspects of historical thinking and inquiry. Furthermore, Yeager and Wilson’s (1997) study of preservice history teachers found that they tended to incorporate historical thinking into their student teaching in varying degrees depending on the emphasis that was placed on historical inquiry and analysis in their college history and methods courses. Several of the preservice teachers in this study indicated that using an historical inquiry approach in their student teaching had made them more reflective in their teaching and interested in learning more about their subject matter. Consequently, the researchers concluded that only when teachers themselves have learned to think historically will they be able to actively engage their students in historical inquiry. Perspective Taking Levstik (1997) has argued that school history too often ignores a fundamental characteristic of historical thinking by presenting a unitary, sanitized version of what happened in the past. The resistance to multiple perspectives in the classroom, she argues, is a reflection of such resistance in the broader culture. Furthermore, she maintains that American culture tends to present issues as a dichotomous struggle between those who are right and wrong or winners and losers (Levstik, 1997). Nonetheless, she contends that while a pluralist or perspectival history runs counter to children's perceived need to know "the truth," it is imperative that they be asked to consider multiple perspectives. Similar to Levstik’s (1997) call for a perspectival, inquiry-oriented history curriculum, the National Council for the Social Studies (1994) maintains that a well-designed social studies curriculum will help each learner to construct a blend of views of

PAGE 53

42 the human condition. NCSS argues that students should be helped to develop a personal perspective that enables them to consider implications for themselves, their families, and the national and world community; an academic perspective by learning to apply knowledge and processes from the social sciences; a pluralist perspective based on respect for differences of opinion and preference, race, religion, gender, class, ethnicity, and culture in general; and a global perspective to live wisely in a world with limited resources and characterized by cultural diversity. According to NCSS, this blending of perspectives will dispose students toward the kind of reflective thinking that is essential for democratic thought and action. Similar to NCSS, the National Center for History in the Schools emphasizes the importance of helping children to develop their skills in historical analysis and interpretation by presenting them with multiple perspectives on history. Echoing other recent research, NCHS argues that children can, from the earliest grades, begin to build historical understandings and perspectives. Thus, students should learn to consider the multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past by demonstrating how their differing motives, beliefs, interests, hopes, and fears influenced individual and group behaviors. According to Hope (1996), one problem with perspective taking approaches is that too many social studies teachers remain “yoked to the textbook,” which contributes to their students’ limited historical perspectives. Good teachers, Hope argues, use the textbook as just one of many sources and know how to motivate their students through activities that are personally meaningful. Nonetheless, textbooks are often students’ first exposure to history and the social studies, and they dominate the perspectives that children learn (Gordy & Pritchard, 1995). In a study of elementary social studies

PAGE 54

43 textbooks adopted in Connecticut, Gordy and Pritchard found that they failed to expose students to multiple perspectives on historical events, and similar to Apple (1993), the authors argue that the textbooks simply reflected existing dominant historical interpretations (Gordy & Prichard, 1995). In a study of four American history textbooks commonly used in high schools across the United States, Foster, Morris and Davis (1996) found that these textbooks likewise failed to incorporate multiple perspectives on history and simply presented information as “a succession of facts marching straight to a settled outcome or resolution” (pp. 379, 382). Furthermore, Davis & Klages (1997) found that the typical high school focus on teaching factual content rather than thinking processes tends to create “forgetful” students of history. In another textbook analysis, this time of six world history textbooks, Foster and Rosch (1997) found that historical events were most frequently depicted from a limited Western perspective. Such research seems to indicate that an enormous gulf continues to separate the calls for teaching multiple perspectives from the current treatment of historical topics in most textbooks. Research findings on student engagement in perspective taking activities are mixed at present. Comparing professional historians with high school students, Wineburg (1991a, 1991b) found that while high school students may know a lot of historical facts, they still had little idea of how historical knowledge and perspectives are actually constructed, insofar as they remained ignorant of the basic heuristics used to create historical interpretations and were unable to distinguish between different types of historical evidence and perspectives. Interestingly, however, in a study among 12-year-olds in England, Foster and Yeager (1999) found that the overwhelming majority of these

PAGE 55

44 students understood that the content of historical sources is often determined by the perspective of the author and the circumstances in which the source was created. Most of these middle school age children appeared to comprehend the concept of historical reliability, were able to selectively identify a few plausible examples of why a source appeared reliable or unreliable, and understood that when a source was imperfect, additional questions could be asked. Doppen (2000), in a study among tenth grade world history students, found that think-aloud sessions helped them to “engage the source” as they discussed among themselves the reliability of different sources. Like Wineburg, he found that students tended to interpret historical sources from a dual (i.e., which “side” the source was on) perspective rather than from multiple perspectives of various participants in historical events. In another study among high school students, Grant (2001) compared two different approaches to teaching about the civil rights era, and found that while one group of students was exposed to multiple perspectives, they did not often center themselves within those perspectives and failed to see connections between the past and their lives today. Others have focused their research on secondary preservice history teachers’ thinking about perspective taking. Bohan and Davis (1998) asked three preservice teachers to write an historical account of the dropping of the atomic bomb based on their analysis of multiple sources and historical perspectives on the event. They found that the teachers often failed to consider the context or the time period in which the document was written. In addition, two of the three participants tended to focus their writing on which “side” a document supported rather than comparing and contrasting individual sources and perspectives. In another study, Yeager and Davis (1995) found a clear

PAGE 56

45 relationship between preservice teachers' omission of perspective taking approaches and the ways in which they were taught and studied history in high school and college. Other reasons why they did not encourage their students to do perspective taking activities derived from their practicality ethic (Cuban, 1984), their dependence on the course textbook, various pedagogical pressures, and their perceptions of the low abilities of some of their students. To improve preservice teachers’ ability to engage in historical thinking, research has suggested that they should more frequently encounter multiple historical perspectives as well as writing assignments in which they must construct historical narratives using a variety of primary and secondary sources (Bohan & Davis, 1998; Yeager & Davis, 1995). Some research has also suggested that social studies teachers should further their efforts to teach multiple perspectives by leading students away from understanding an historical event (e.g., the Holocaust) simply through one particular actor (e.g., Hitler), and compelling them to investigate multiple historical actors, influences, causation, and categories of events (Riley, 2001). While perspective taking is an important component of historical inquiry, it may well be tempting to focus nearly exclusively on process skills at the expense of content knowledge (VanSledright, 1996). Therefore, it must be noted that the preparation of a history unit based on multiple perspectives can involve countless hours, and that the teaching of such an interpretive-oriented unit is more time-consuming than a didactic delivery of historical facts in “the tradition of archivism” (Doppen, 2000; Grant, 2001). Nonetheless, teaching students how to engage in perspective taking has been described as essential for their eventual participation in democratic public discourse (Levstik, 1997).

PAGE 57

46 Historical Empathy Many have suggested that while teaching perspective taking, one must also give special attention to the concept of historical empathy. However, historical empathy remains a problematic and contested term. While some have asserted that it is a “profoundly unhelpful term in history” and have condemned it for political reasons, others believe that it helps students to examine, appreciate, and understand the perspectives of people in the past and to render them intelligible to contemporary minds (Foster, 2001, pp. 167-175). Some argue, for example, that while the perspective of an outraged contemporary American teenager sitting in the comfort of an unthreatened classroom might differ dramatically from that of a Polish-German day laborer near Auschwitz in 1944 who sees the trains arrive full of people and leave empty, it will nonetheless help him or her “to absorb the complexity if he or she can reflect from the shoes of the laborer, not necessarily to agree but to empathize, to understand (Sizer & Sizer, 1999, p. 22). The term “empathy” derives from the German idealism of the nineteenth century with its romantic notions of “Einfhlung” and “verstehen.” Early German historians such as Wilhelm Dilthey considered empathy an essential element of historical understanding (Portal, 1987). The term “Einfhlung” conveys the German notion of being able to feel one’s way into another person’s thought processes, while “verstehen” likewise refers to a similar deep understanding of the inner feelings that motivate a person’s actions (Erickson, 1986). Nearly three decades ago, historical empathy gained the renewed attention of some British historians who sought to define its role in the process of historical thinking (Dickinson & Lee, 1978: Lee, 1978). These historians argued that history typically

PAGE 58

47 involves human action, and that historical explanation is frequently couched in terms of an agent’s intentions and reasons for performing a particular action (Lee, 1978). Arguing that historical thinking “involves understanding why some agent acted as he did,” Dickinson & Lee (1978, p. 99) stated that such an explanation is not “a matter of intuitive leaps, or empathy as subjective and intuitive, but rather a matter of public evidence (Lee, 1978, p. 74). Consequently, they forcefully advocated a definition of historical empathy based on a “detailed acquaintance with the age, and that it is not a matter of feeling or intuition but of rigorous supposition based upon evidence” (Lee, 1978, p. 83). Teaching children about historical empathy, therefore, should allow them to “bring out their misconceptions” and “be open enough to encourage [them] to talk and listen to each other” (Dickinson & Lee, 1978, p. 108). Later, Ashby and Lee (1987) refined the definition of historical empathy as an achievement where one has “successfully reconstructed other people’s beliefs, values, goals and attendant feelings” and “is in a position to entertain a set of beliefs and values which are not necessarily his or her own” (p. 63). Arguing that historical empathy, while resting on evidential reconstruction, is largely inferential, Ashby and Lee also allowed for historical imagination by maintaining that “it does not have to involve formally articulated reasoning rather than intuitive leaps, sudden flashes of inspiration and the like” (p. 63). This interpretation was affirmed by Portal (1987), who argued in favor of historical empathy as “a way of thinking imaginatively” in conjunction with “other cognitive skills in order to see human values in history,” and thus basing it on “a high level of expertise in the whole range of historical skills” (pp. 89-90). Incorporating “Einfhlung” and “verstehen” into his definition, Portal argued that the role of empathy

PAGE 59

48 in historical understanding is “to project ourselves into the historical situation and to use ‘our mind’s eye’ to bring into play the standards of intuitive observation” (p. 90) and to try to “hear [the characters] talking” (p. 95). At the same time, both Ashby and Lee (1987) and Shemilt (1987) developed early models of empathic stages. In their model Ashby and Lee characterized historical empathy as a range of five levels along which students progressed from seeing past human action (1) as unintelligible and the work of mentally defective people, (2) in terms of stereotypical images, (3) in modern, presentist terms only, (4) as essentially different from the here and now, and (5) as something that must be understood or explained into a wider, at times speculated, picture. Maintaining that “empathic construction of action and meaning amounts to the reduction of a puzzle, to the rendering of the strange and unintelligible down to the recognizable and comprehensible” (p. 44), Shemilt (1987) developed a model consisting of four progressive stages in which students (1) simply know what the teacher says is true, (2) have developed a dawning sense that historical truth is negotiable based on evidence, (3) fully differentiate the concepts of evidence and information and begin to look for methodological approaches to evidence, and (4) begin to recognize the past as no more than a reconstruction of past events. Based on the early research on historical empathy, Foster (1999) and Foster and Yeager (1998) recently reiterated that developing historical empathy in students should not be based on exercises in imagination, overidentification, or sympathy. Rather they have argued that it should be “a considered and active process, embedded in the historical method” that involves four interrelated phases: (1) the introduction of an historical event whose human actions need to be analyzed, (2) the understanding of the historical context

PAGE 60

49 and chronology, (3) the analysis of a variety of historical evidence and interpretations, and (4) the construction of a narrative framework through which historical conclusions are made (Foster & Yeager, 1998, p. 1; Davis et al., 2001, pp. 13-14). Foster's research (1999) suggests that when asking their students to analyze a variety of historical evidence and interpretations, secondary teachers should pay special attention to the importance of historical empathy. He suggests that historical empathy requires attention to six separate aspects of historical thinking: (1) that it is a process that leads to an understanding and explanation of why people in the past acted as they did, (2) that it involves an appreciation of historical context and chronology in the evaluation of past events, (3) that it is reliant upon a thorough analysis and evaluation of historical evidence, (4) that it involves an appreciation of the consequences of actions perpetrated in the past, (5) that it demands an intuitive sense of a bygone era and an implicit recognition that the past is different from the present, and (6) that it requires a respect for, an appreciation of, and a sensitivity toward the complexity of human action and achievement. Blake (1998) has argued that Foster and Yeager’s search for historical empathy constitutes a reductive approach. He avers that they fail to realize the integrative and holistic nature of empathy across disciplines and has suggested that they abandon the search for historical empathy and instead embrace the notion of “empathy-in-history” (p. 26). According to Blake, empathy is such an integral part of historical understanding that to separate it amounts to anesthetizing it from a gamut of possible perspectives and emotions. Such feelings, Blake argues, “do not cloud empathy but rather help us see emotional and cognitive structures which help us to reflect and understand ourselves

PAGE 61

50 better” (p. 28). Furthermore, he argues that empathy may “in some contexts well be a product or outcome,” as Foster and Yeager have argued, “but in others a process of reflection or inquiry, or both in a certain context, or yet again something completely different in another” (pp. 29-30). However, a recent study by Davis et al. (2001) nonetheless attempts to synthesize the current research and narrow its conceptual framework. Contrary to Blake (1998), the researchers in this study contend that historical empathy is of fundamental importance because it plays a role in the process of adductive, inferential thinking that allows the historian to make sense of past actions (Booth, 1980, 1993; Yeager & Foster, 2001). Although engagement in historical empathy renders no absolute truths, it is still a worthwhile practice that ultimately may give students a richer understanding of the past (Yeager & Foster, 2001). Reflecting back on his own experiences with historical empathy, Davis (2001) maintains that it is especially difficult for students as well as their teachers to think apart from the official knowledge of textbooks in order to analyze discrepant historical evidence and different perspectives. He argues that historical empathy enriches students’ understanding of context, and while it is intellectual in nature, it may also include emotional dimensions. However, as has been stated before by Portal (1987), Davis argues that imagination in historical empathy must always be restrained by evidence. As in their previous research, Lee and Ashby (Ashby & Lee, 1987; Lee & Ashby, 2001) continue to define historical empathy as an achievement, i.e. being able, based on evidence, to see how different perspectives actually have affected people’s actions in particular

PAGE 62

51 circumstances. Thus, historical empathy is an achievement one gets to “when you have done the hard thinking” (Lee & Ashby, 2001, p. 25). Acknowledging the difficulty of avoiding presentism, VanSledright (2001) argues that any historical thinker can only make sense of the past through the lens of his or her own positionality and therefore can only construct meaning and pursue understanding within a contemporary context. According to VanSledright, the emphasis on historical empathy is misplaced, as it cannot be achieved in any fully direct, unmediated way. Instead it is a relative achievement that is not possible in any complete sense, and hardly predictable in that it is “tempered continually by the inquirer’s positionality” (pp. 57-58). He defines empathy as a form of necromancy in which the historian acts as a sorcerer who “conjures a vision of past action that a contemporary audience will find recognizable, intelligible and plausible” (p. 61). Evidence from the past always requires interpretation that is “couched in a historicized present-day context, and surrounded by implicitly held temporal bearings that prescribe and direct the interpretative process” (p. 64). Thus VanSledright argues that learning to contextualize can serve as a better cognitive tool, because it entails exposure to a wide array of rich historical materials and to the relentless examination of one’s own positionality, as well as that of the producers of historical evidence. Comparing empathy to “an act of sorcery” thus allows us to “continually reexamine the illusions we project on our ancestors,” which will only help us to further understand who we are ourselves (p. 66). Similar to VanSledright, Levstik (2001) argues that historical understanding requires “an imaginative leap across space between self and ‘other’” (p. 72). Her study of students in New Zealand underlines the importance of positionality, in that these students

PAGE 63

52 have access to a national narrative and perspectives that are substantially different from those of their American counterparts. Examining past actions from different national perspectives can further help students to recognize their own contextualized nature of historical and cultural literacy (Downey & Levstik, 1988; Levstik , 1997). Based on an extensive review of articles published in Social Studies and the Young Learner since 1988, Field (2001) discerns five major categories of perspectives: personal, cultural, civic-community, chronological, and histori-biographical, and argues that elementary social studies teachers understand that children can and do learn to take perspectives at an early age and are able to engage in empathy activities. With regard to older students, in two separate studies Yeager and Doppen (2001) found that high school students can be meaningfully engaged in the development of historical empathy. Studying Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb, students were able to view the president’s decision in relatively complex terms. While investigation questions effectively assisted students in analyzing the meaning and value of the historical sources they used, many nonetheless expressed the view that there are essentially two sides to an issue. In addition, while most students were able to write a narrative in which they cited multiple sources and presented multiple perspectives, they were unable to transfer that ability to the creation of a multi-perspectival museum display on the dropping of the atomic bomb. Riley (2001) has argued that while these learning activities are commendable, the efforts to teach students historical understanding, including historical empathy, must be expanded beyond one mere actor or event to include multiple actors and categories. She cautions that too often teachers, even when presenting multiple perspectives, direct

PAGE 64

53 students toward a predetermined position, “lest they get it wrong” (p. 147). Riley argues that historical empathy should be interpreted as a task to be done, and that historical interpretation is not predetermined but rather based upon the examined evidence. Thus social studies teachers should help students acquire “the tools of the discipline” (p. 160) that will direct them towards a discovery of historical context, rather than being presented with the context as a starting point, as advocated by others (Foster & Yeager, 1998; Yeager & Doppen, 2001; Yeager & Foster, 2001). Carefully reevaluating the definition of historical empathy based on recent research, Foster (2001) argues that historical empathy appears to be associated with six basic characteristics: (1) it primarily does not involve imagination, identification, or sympathy, (2) it involves understanding people’s actions in the past, (3) it involves a thorough appreciation of historical context, (4) it requires multiple forms of evidence and perspective, (5) it requires students to examine their own perspectives, and (6) it encourages well-grounded but tentative conclusions. Thus, Foster states that one of the primary purposes of historical studies is “to understand people in the past better than they understood themselves,” and that “students of history should use their unique contemporary perspective to better understand past actions and events” (pp. 172-173). Engaging students in inquiries that require them to understand the actions of people in the past thus offers “the potential for extremely powerful classroom learning opportunities (p. 178). Finally, as Davis (2001) emphasizes, the essential fact remains that most school history teachers have little experience with historical thinking tasks. In order for them to teach historical thinking, they must learn to think historically themselves, and when they

PAGE 65

54 do so, the courses they teach will need to be restructured. While teachers are often resistant to change (Cuban, 1984), they may nonetheless be willing to change their practice once they recognize that historical empathy and perspective taking can truly engage their students’ minds. Summary For the past two decades social studies research has been moving in a new direction. Research on historical thinking has been focused especially on historical inquiry, the process of actively engaging students in “doing history” (Doppen & Yeager, 1998; Levstik & Barton, 1997; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; NCHS, 1984; NCSS, 1984; VanSledright, 1996). Rejecting Piagetian models of mental development, social studies researchers have argued that students as early as elementary school can begin to think historically, and that there is no longer any reason to delay instruction until it is “developmentally appropriate” (Ashby & Lee, 1987; Barton & Levstik, 1996; Booth, 1980, 1987, 1993; Brophy & VanSledright, 1997; Dickinson & Lee, 1984; Downey & Levstik, 1988, 1991; Levstik & Pappas 1992; Shemilt, 1987; Thornton & Vukelich, 1988). As early as sixth grade, students have been found to be spontaneously skeptical of their social studies text and able to recognize that other perspectives could have been presented, an ability that becomes increasingly sophisticated as they progress through middle and high school (Foster, Hoge & Rosch, 1999; Foster & Yeager, 1999; Levstik, 1995). When teachers allow their students to construct their own interpretations based on multiple perspectives, history tends to become more meaningful and students remember things better (Davis & Klages, 1997; Doppen, 1999; Grant, 2001; Levstik , 1997; Seixas, 1996; VanSledright, 1996; Yeager & Davis, 1996; Yeager & Wilson, 1997). While many social studies teachers remain

PAGE 66

55 focused on the limited perspective offered by traditional textbooks (Foster et al., 1996; Foster & Rosh, 1997; Gordy & Pritchard, 1995; Hope, 1996), this body of research also has shown that it may be difficult for most teachers and students to look beyond the issue of which “side” a document supports (Bohan & Davis, 1998; Doppen, 2000; Foster & Yeager, 1999; Yeager & Doppen, 2001; Wineburg, 1991a, 1991b). Many have suggested that special attention should also be given to the concept of historical empathy to help students examine, appreciate, and understand the perspectives of people in the past (Ashby & Lee, 1987; Dickinson & Lee, 1978; Foster, 2001; Lee, 1978; Portal, 1987; Shemilt, 1987; Sizer & Sizer, 1999). Although students can only study the past through the lens of their own positionality, empathy may ultimately give them a richer understanding of the past (Foster & Yeager, 2001; Lee & Ashby, 2001, Levstik, 2001; VanSledright, 2001). A careful reevaluation of historical empathy suggests that it does not involve imagination, identification, or sympathy, but that it involves an understanding of people’s actions in the past, a thorough appreciation of historical context through multiple forms of evidence and perspectives, an examination of students’ own perspectives, and encouragement of well-grounded but tentative conclusions (Foster, 2001). When teachers and their students routinely engage in historical inquiry, the study of history has the potential to deeply engage the students’ minds (Wineburg, 1999). Technology And The Social Studies Background: Technology And Education Recent advances in technology have made it increasingly possible for teachers to use computers for educational purposes. About a decade ago, Becker (1991, 1994) found that public school students spent most of their time learning how to use computers for

PAGE 67

56 word processing. At the same time, Oliver (1994) found that teachers’ use of computers for administrative purposes and personal productivity far outstripped their use for teaching. While a mere five percent of computer-using teachers could be regarded as exemplary users, material as well attitudinal factors stood in the way of more productivity-oriented uses of the computer (Becker, 1991, 1994). The increase in the number of computers in the public schools and public school access to the Internet has been explosive. Between 1995 and 1999 the mean number of computers per school rose from 72 to 100 (NCES, March 2001), and while in 1994 of all public schools a mere 35 percent had access to the Internet, by the fall of 2000 this figure had risen to 98 percent (NCES, May 2001). The explosive increase in the availability of computers in the public schools has been accompanied by changes in teacher and student use of computers. Most teachers now make some use of the Internet to find information and send email, while a relative few have begun to publish on the World Wide Web as well (Becker, 1999). Although word processing and the use of CD-ROMS are still the two most common forms of computer usage by students, web searching has become the third most common. And although using information to write word-processed papers is still the most common use of computers by students, nearly one fifth of computer-subject teachers now involve their students in telecollaborative and web publishing activities (Becker, 1999). In addition, teachers assigned to “high-achieving” classes tend to use computers more than those assigned to “low-achieving” classes, and those teachers who have Internet access at home are more likely to make professional use of the Internet than those who do not (Becker, 1999).

PAGE 68

57 Teachers who have computers in their own classroom also tend to use computers more than when they have to take their students to other locations (Becker, 1999). Increased computer use in classrooms has commonly been found to enhance student motivation and enjoyment, to shift the teacher’s role, and to change the nature of peer interaction (Schofield, 1995). Because of computers, teachers no longer have to be in charge every minute and can give some control to their students. Such constructivist approaches signal a change in the teacher’s role to that of a facilitator of student learning (Sprague & Dede, 1999). As a result of these recent developments, national leaders and organizations are increasingly calling for technology-friendly teachers, while national educational technology standards call for teachers and students to use technology as an integral component across the curriculum. In 1998 the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) published its National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-Students). The following year, the so-called Milken report (ISTE, 1999) presented the findings of a national survey on information technology in teacher education. It found that while most institutions reported that they had an adequate technology infrastructure, they lacked a technology vision, and even though they had a faculty with computer skills comparable to those of their students, professors did not model their use in their classes. The report also noted that while there is technology available in K-12 schools, most preservice teachers do not get to use it. The same year, the United States Department of Education issued a three-year PT3 (Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology) grant to ISTE to develop new technology standards for teacher preparation programs as well. As a result, ISTE (2000) now has also published the National Educational

PAGE 69

58 Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-Teachers). The public reaction to the NETS has been overwhelmingly positive, and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) now requires that teacher education programs integrate technology into their courses and programs (Wiebe et al., 2000). Several states, however, had already developed their own teacher technology standards prior to the NETS-Teachers. In an analysis of technology standards in four states, Zhao and Kendall (2001) found that they are very similar to the NETS-Teachers in what they require teachers to do, but that they have a different orientation in describing technological, pedagogical, social, ethical, and legal requirements. The authors argue that the older standards tend to be more technology-oriented, whereas the more recent ones are more education-oriented. Affirming the philosophical orientation of the National Educational Technology Standards (1998, 2000), Zhao and Kendall argue that knowing how to use technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with technology, and that merely requiring teachers to use certain devices or software does not automatically result in improved teaching (p. 16). The Philosophical Divide The debate about the role of computers in education has been intense. Some strongly advocate using computers, and others are diametrically opposed. In addition, there are those who embrace a more pragmatic middle ground. Labeling the computer “the children’s machine,” Papert (1993) has argued that it offers children unprecedented opportunities for informal learning in contrast to the formal educational process typically followed in the schools. According to Papert, children have a passionate love affair with the computer, and as a result schools must develop a whole new culture of learning unless they want to be “sleepwalking dinosaur[s]” (p. 37).

PAGE 70

59 Likewise Swain, Bridges & Hresko (1996) have heralded the World Wide Web as a “revolutionary device” that allows students to share resources and ideas while fostering “a sense of global community” (p. 83). Taking such ideas even further, others have even argued that twenty-first century technology permits an explosion of learning beyond the walls of the classroom (Perelman, 1992) and will lead to a “degathering” of society in which school is wherever the learner is (Martorella, 1996). On the other hand, Postman (1995) has argued that nowhere is there more enthusiasm for the “false god of Technology” than among educators (p. 378). He posits that technology is a mixed blessing and that the role of technology in the schools needs to be discussed without the “hyperactive fantasies of cheerleaders” (p. 378). Similarly, Oppenheimer (1997) has labeled the infatuation with computers a delusion that deprives children of the value of hands-on learning and reduces learning to what is on a two-dimensional screen. Furthermore, Fabos & Young (1999) have called into question the benefits of telecommunication in the classroom by arguing that the perceived skills and social and economic benefits of its use must always be considered within the broad context of a non-egalitarian global economy, in which students in the western world are reduced to “electronic tourist[s]” whose dominant perspective is merely affirmed again and again (p. 249). Likewise, Postman (2000) maintains there is a trade-off, as “technology giveth and technology taketh away” (p. 582).” While he claims not to be speaking against computers, Postman insists that technology can never be the end of learning but rather must always be “the servant of human aspiration” (p. 586). Treading more of a middle ground, Goodlad (1984) argued nearly two decades ago that computers are “merely an enhancement of that most significant of all tools, the

PAGE 71

60 human mind” (p. 228). Recently, Healy (1998) has similarly argued strongly against computer use among children under the age of 7, when computers may do more harm than good. Advocating common sense, she suggests that all children, regardless of age, should be held accountable for the amount of time they spend on the computer and that they should never become “the tool of the tool” (Tell, 2000, p. 13). Furthermore, Martorella (1998) has warned about important ethical concerns focused on First Amendment and privacy rights. Cuban (1997, 2001) has argued that teachers and professors make limited use of computers based on their core values about their own role in education. According to Cuban, teachers and professors are not by nature technophobic, but simply lack the time and support to restructure their curricula. He finds that the majority of teachers have become serious users of computers at home, and that most use computers to prepare for instruction rather than using them during instruction. Averring that computers have been “oversold and underused” (2001, p. 179), Cuban (2001) predicts that no fundamental changes in teaching practices will occur as long as teachers continue to contemplate whether spending limited educational funds to sustain technology actually contributes to the broader civic and social roles of schools in a democratic society. Consequently, the future of schools will be “very much the story of where we choose to take technology,” rather than where technology takes us (White & Hubbard, 1988, p. 189). Computer Use In The Classroom The research suggests some basic frameworks for categorizing teachers’ use of computers. While Heywood and Norman (1988) distinguished between teachers who use, under-use, or do not use computers at all, Marcinkiewicz (1993-1994; 1996) developed a similar distinction between those who do not use, those who use, or those who integrate

PAGE 72

61 computers into their teaching. Most recently, Conway & Zhao (2001) made a distinction among teachers as Luddites, gatekeepers, and designers. In an extensive study of teachers’ computer use, Marcinkiewicz (1996) found that preservice teachers had very high expectations of computer use, but after they had taught for a year their levels of use approached the average level of use by practicing teachers. Oliver (1994) found that beginning teachers actually make considerably less use of computers than other teachers in their school. Approximately 75 percent of beginning teachers in his study made no use or very limited use of computers, despite the fact that they judged themselves to have adequate access to good hardware and software. In addition, in a study of Internet use by teachers, Becker (1999) found that beginning teachers differ somewhat from other teachers. He concluded that, even though they are younger and possibly more computer-savvy, teachers with less than four years of teaching experience are slightly less likely than other teachers to use the Internet with their students. Furthermore, Becker found that teachers under age 30 in their first few years of teaching are the ones to most likely use the Internet professionally and more likely than older teachers to consider the Internet as essential in their classroom. Yet, the teachers who are most likely to do student projects involving the Internet and publishing on the Web are those who have 4 to 7 years of teaching experience (Becker, 1999). Based on data collected in a multi-ethnic, varied socioeconomic, large urban high school, Schofield (1995) found significant gender differences in teachers’ and students’ use of computers. Since five of the six computer teachers were male, the school in her study lacked female role models. In addition, while the second-year computer science course remained racially balanced, female enrollment was exceptionally low. Gibson and

PAGE 73

62 Nocente (1999) found similar gender differences at the elementary level as well, which according to Kirkpatrick & Cuban (1999), increase significantly by high school when girls have less access to and make less use of computers. These gender differences are often said to be part of what Loyd Morrisett, former president of the Markle Foundation, labeled the “digital divide” (Novak & Hoffman, 1998) whose existence appears to be confirmed by Technology Counts 2001, an annual report published by Education Week. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael K. Powell, has suggested that the digital divide is now more of a “Mercedes divide,” that is, everyone would like to have a “Mercedes” but can still get to where they need to go with a less expensive machine (Technology Counts 2001). However, Technology Counts 2001 notes that what schools are grappling with is not a single, gaping divide but rather a set of divides. The inequities no longer involve access to computers but rather issues such as the way computers are used to educate children. As a result, Technology Counts 2001 identifies poor children, minority students, girls, low achievers, students learning to speak English, children with disabilities, and rural students as those who appear to be losing out when it comes to technology. Recently, Zhao (2001) found that most teachers who are exemplary users of technology use word processing software, presentation software, drawing and painting programs, and multimedia software in their classrooms, as well as spend time troubleshooting technical problems. He also found that word processing is the most often used technology, that nearly all use email to communicate with parents, and that the Internet as a source of lesson plans is the second most used technology. While 4 out of 5 exemplary teachers in Zhao's study rated themselves proficient in the basic functions of

PAGE 74

63 common technologies such as word processing, email, the Internet, database, spreadsheet, and educational software, not every teacher perceived himself or herself as competent in advanced features such as subscribing to a discussion list, attaching an email document, or creating their own Web pages. The exemplary teachers in Zhao’s study (2001) generally held a positive attitude toward the integration of computers in education and took a progressive pedagogical approach. Such exemplary teachers may well come to blend the traditional goals of education with new non-linear models of instruction in which print literacy is only one of several new literacies that better address students' multiple intelligences (White & Hubbard, 1988; Willis, 1997). In leaving behind the text-centric world that has guided us for so long (Ohler, 2000), education is perhaps on the verge of a major series of developments in semasiographic writing systems, in which visual hypermedia will rival glottographic writing systems in terms of accessibility and expressiveness (Davis, 1997). Factors Impacting Computer Use Rogers’ (1995) study of the diffusion of innovation provides a useful model for analyzing the process of how an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time. Factors that influence whether a person adopts an innovation include its perceived relative advantage compared to the idea it supersedes; the degree to which it is compatible with existing values, past experiences, and present needs; the degree to which it is perceived as complex to understand and use; the degree to which it is triable, that is, may be experimented with on a limited basis; and the degree to which its results are observable to others. The decision to adopt an innovation follows a five-step process of, first, gaining knowledge of the innovation, then being persuaded of its worth, actually deciding to adopt or reject it, implementing its use, and, finally, being confirmed in one’s

PAGE 75

64 decision. Rogers suggests five different adopter categories ranging from “innovators to early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards” (pp. 255-280). Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) have suggested that the frequency and use of computers and the level of integration of technology in the classroom consist of five levels ranging from entry to adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention. The entry level involves the first few months of use and is followed by the adoption level, in which teachers use computers conventionally for text, lecture, and introducing their students to basic skills. At the adaptation level teaching is still mostly conventional, but students spend about one-fourth of their time using computers for homework and daily work in class, whereas at the appropriation level the teacher regularly integrates technology into his or her daily routines. Lastly, at the invention level teachers experiment with new ways of networking students and colleagues, and use technology for project-based instruction and interdisciplinary approaches. The level at which teachers accept an innovation often depends on their own background and especially their computer experiences, which may or may not include a formal computer education program as part of their training (Becker, 1994, 1999; Oliver, 1994). When teachers believe that using computers helps to make them more effective teachers, as well as improve student learning through constructivist practices, they are more likely to embrace their use (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Zhao, 2001). Self-efficacy is an equally important factor, as a teacher’s confidence in his or her own ability to successfully use computers directly impacts the choice to use them. Teachers who exhibit low self-efficacy with computers are more apt to resist using them (Olivier & Shapiro, 1993). Attitudes have proved to be significant predictors of computer

PAGE 76

65 anxiety or self-efficacy (Bradley & Russell, 1997; Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Lloyd & Gressard, 1984; Marcinkiewicz, 1996; Olivier & Shapiro, 1993). Doubts, lack of interest, or lack of knowledge may lead teachers to avoid using computers altogether, or use them to gain off-task time while their students work “independently” on drill-and-practice programs in computer labs (Evans-Andris, 1995; Schofield, 1995). Institutional and organizational constraints of schooling, societal expectations for schools, and historical legacies also influence the level of computer use by teachers (Cuban, 2001; Schofield, 1995). Due to their complex nature, school systems are often slow in adopting new technologies (Cuban, 2001). Differences in schools and classroom environments affect what teachers are able to do (Becker, 1994). Access to computer resources is often a major problem for teachers (Strudler, McKinney & Jones, 1999). Basic day-to-day problems involving access and limitations of hardware or inadequate numbers of computer peripherals often prevent teachers from using computers when they want to (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993). In his study of Internet use, Becker (1999) found that a teacher’s level of classroom connectivity was by far the most important predicting variable. In addition, even when schools are fully computer-equipped, personnel and maintenance needs often are not being met adequately. As a result, there remains the constant threat of obsolescence (Cuban, 2001; Martorella, 1997; Schofield, 1995). Teachers often cite a lack of time to explore and learn to use new computer-related technology (Evans-Andris, 1995; Willis, 1993). Thus, they often rely on overburdened computer-savvy colleagues (Schofield, 1995). According to Cuban (2001), the lack of time for teachers in the public schools and the focus on research in academia are the major reasons why teachers and professors make extensive personal use of computers yet

PAGE 77

66 fail to model their use in their own classrooms. Moreover, teachers often complain about a lack of professional development opportunities to improve their computer skills (Becker, 1999; Keiper et al., 2000; Schofield, 1995; Strudler et al., 1999; Willis, 1993; Zhao, 2001). This lack is often due to the failure among school administrators to develop a technology vision (Ritchie, 1996). As a result of this lack of vision, many schools have chosen to locate their computers in separate labs and have created separate computer classes, rather than seeking to fully integrate them in each classroom (Evans-Andris, 1995; Ritchie, 1996). Even when administrators do choose to infuse computers in their schools, a top-down decision making process often leads to failure over time because teachers resent their lack of ownership of the process (Willis, 1993). Because of the lack of professional development opportunities and administrative support, many teachers resort to an informal collegial network at their own school or with other schools (Becker, 1999; Hadley & Scheingold, 1993). Thus, the expectations of a teacher’s culture, as embodied by his or her administrators, colleagues, students, and professional organizations, significantly influence the level of integration of computers into his or her teaching (Marcinkiewicz, 1996). Consequently, some have called for the creation of self-sustaining communities of technology-using educators (Willis, 1993). Teacher Education And Computer Use Only a few years ago, Martorella (1996) argued that teacher education programs were failing to prepare teachers for using emerging technologies in the classroom. Teacher education programs, he explained, were driven by an academic culture based on individual rewards, lacked the necessary hardware and software, harbored faculty members who lacked knowledge or were “simply out of touch,” and lacked the necessary technical support (NCATE, 1997). Many beginning teachers have indicated that they feel

PAGE 78

67 ill-prepared and have expressed a strong need for learning how to implement computers in the classroom (Dunn & Ridgway, 1991; Handler, 1993; Oliver, 1994; Strudler et al., 1999). White (1997) has even suggested that teacher education programs should adopt the new technologies or run the risk of further widening the gap between university teacher education and the public schools. Teacher education programs have recently taken steps to address these perceived shortcomings. Estimating a need for nearly two million new teachers in the next decade, NCATE (1997) has called for teachers who are fearless when it comes to using technology and has itself begun the process of integrating technology use into its accreditation process. Many teacher educators have realized that the typical one-semester-long, stand-alone computer course does not adequately prepare preservice teachers to integrate technology into their teaching (Handler, 1993; ISTE, 1999). Realizing the importance of routinely integrating technology into teaching, colleges of education now have begun the process of eliminating separate technology courses and focusing instead on the integration of technology throughout their program of courses (Cherup & Linklater, 2000; Willis, 1997; Zhao & Kendall, 2001). When preservice teachers are exposed to using technology in their teacher education program, there is a very strong probability they will use it in their field experiences, which has been found to be a major contributing factor to a sense of preparedness to use technology (Handler, 1993; Stephens, 2000). The integration of technology into the field experiences of preservice teachers is perhaps the most critical need in preparing them to become teachers (Strudler et al., 1999). Because the correlation between the use of technology by the directing teacher and the student teacher is near

PAGE 79

68 perfect (Stephens, 2000), some have even suggested that there needs to be a requirement for directing teachers to participate in computer workshops (Handler, 1993). Others have suggested new models for professional development, in which colleges of education help to train a corps of teachers, perhaps through a series of technology modules, who can further enhance the integration of computers throughout the curriculum at their respective school sites (Diem, 1996). Background: Technology And The Social Studies As the use of technology in the classroom becomes more widespread, researchers have also begun to turn their attention to how it can be used to improve the teaching and learning of social studies. Similar to other academic disciplines, social studies has its “techno-optimists” and “techno-skeptics” (Berson, Lee, and Stuckart, 2001). A few years ago, Martorella (1997) argued that if a sleeping giant were to awaken, he would be surprised by the sweeping technological changes taking place everywhere but would also find how little the social studies curriculum has changed. Simultaneously, Fontana (1997) warned that if social studies teachers fail to embrace technology, they risk leading parents and policy makers to the conclusion that social studies is no longer relevant in the information age. Instead, some have argued that technology can help social studies teachers to make their classrooms more meaningful and less “yoked to the textbook” (Hope, 1996). And as Diem (2000) has posited recently, by now technology has already so profoundly changed social studies education that researchers have begun to look at newly emerging pedagogical, content, and social issues. Some researchers warn that a blind acceptance of technology disempowers both teachers and students, insofar as it takes away existing opportunities (Postman, 2000; White, 1999). Postman (2000) argues that technology must “always be the servant of

PAGE 80

69 human aspiration” and that relying too much on it is not only costly but also takes resources away that could have been allocated elsewhere (pp.582-583, 586). “Techno-skeptics” (Berson et al., 2001, p. 223) caution against the downside of technology, asserting that there is “little or no evidence to support the beneficial claims” (Ross, 2000, p. 484) of “techno-optimists” (Berson et al., 2001, p. 223) and that technology may even be “physically, intellectually, and socially harmful” (Ross, 2000, p. 484). Of special significance to the social studies has been Harris’ argument (1998) that there is a big difference between using the tools and using the tools, and that it is up to teachers to “tweak” an idea to fit the unique nature of the context in which they work. Using technology in any classroom, including the social studies classroom, is “worth it” only when it enables students to do something they could not do before, or could do before, only better. Like Harris, others have argued that computers should be used as mind tools to construct knowledge, similar to the way a carpenter uses tools to construct things (Jonassen, 1996; Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998). Much of the social studies research now argues that technology offers the opportunity to move away from teacher-centered classrooms to educational settings in which students can actively construct their own knowledge (Crocco, 2001; Dawson et al., 1999; Hope, 1996; Mason & Gerler, 1998; Merryfield, 2000; Saye, 2000; White, 1996). Especially when studying history, students now have access to enormous amounts of information that until recently were only available to scholars, which allows them to “do history” by analyzing and interpreting primary documents (Dawson et al., 1999; Dawson et al., 2000; Hope, 1996; Mason & Carter, 1999; Rice & Wilson, 1999; Saye, 2000; White, 1996). As a result, constructivist

PAGE 81

70 approaches to the teaching and learning of social studies are heralded as a way to engage students in higher-order thinking and build communities of learners in which students have the opportunity to create their own various learning outcomes (Dawson et al., 1999; Hope, 1996; Jonassen, 1996; Jonassen et al., 1998; Rice & Wilson, 1999; Saye, 2000; Sherman & Hicks, 2000; White, 1999). Computer Use In The Social Studies While social studies teachers may have to grapple with the slow diffusion of technology within the bureaucratic structure of their respective schools (Dawson et al., 2000), many have begun to integrate computers into their teaching. Arguing that the integration of technology in the social studies classroom was limited and tended to be marginalized as a tool to be fitted into teachers’ existing pedagogical styles, Berson (1996) noted five major uses: (1) drill and practice, tutorials, and study guides, (2) games and simulations, (3) inquiry and problem solving, (4) graphics, and (5) word processing and writing. Additionally, others have noted a trend to teach basic computer skills (Keiper et al., 2000; J. Olson, 2000). However, especially with increased access to the Internet, social studies teachers are now able to engage their students in more varied learning activities such as accessing information from digital archives, collecting and analyzing information from databases, developing their own databases, going on virtual fieldtrips, participating in telecollaborative activities, and even creating their own virtual reality projects (Dawson & Harris, 1999; Dawson et al., 1999; Keiper et al., 2000; Mason & Carter, 1999). With email, social studies teachers now can more easily communicate with colleagues, parents and students (Keiper et al., 2000). For example, while acknowledging concerns about ethnocentrism (Fabos & Young, 1999), Merryfield (2000) has found that threaded online

PAGE 82

71 discussions can actually assist in decolonizing students’ knowledge and in opening them up to new multicultural and global perspectives, while simultaneously creating an environment in which some students feel less inhibited to express their true opinions than when they are in a face-to-face situation. The increased access to the Internet has provided social studies teachers with many new challenges. Braun & Risinger (1999) have argued that while the Internet is only a tool, it can be both “enriching and frustrating, and even dangerous” when “soaked in pollution and garbage” (p. 7). The information available on the Internet may at times be a “mile wide but only an inch deep,” yet at other times “a mile wide and a mile deep” (p. 7). Students also increasingly misperceive the Internet as the ultimate source for all their information needs and can become easily frustrated when it takes a long time to find the information they are looking for or when links go nowhere (Berson et al., 2001; Scott & O’Sullivan, 2000). Social studies teachers now also face the problem that the sheer amount of information available on the Internet is so overwhelming that students can easily become confused (Dawson et al., 2000). It is clear that students need to be taught how to critically evaluate the information they find and learn how to separate wheat from chaff, in addition to being kept safe in cyberspace (Berson, Berson & Ralston, 1999; Mason et al., 2000; Pittman & McLaughlin, 2000; Risinger, 1998; Scott & O’Sullivan, 2000). One way that social studies teachers have tried to protect students and direct their learning is through a webquest approach. Milson & Downey (2001) found that this approach provided an effective structure, especially for elementary social studies students, in that it cut down on wasted time and kept children from visiting inappropriate

PAGE 83

72 web sites. In a webquest with middle school students, Lipscomb (2001), however, found that they tended to be overwhelmed with the amount of information they encountered and lacked the necessary skills to examine multiple perspectives. Saye and Brush (1999) encountered similar issues among high school students. The students in their study were unable to deeply engage with the topic, failed to weigh competing perspectives, and simply lacked the domain-specific and metacognitive knowledge to do what they were asked to do. Saye and Brush concluded that the social studies teacher seems to remain the crucial factor when it comes to “nurturing the disciplined inquiry” (p. 472). As with teachers in other disciplines, social studies teachers face a number of typical obstacles that stand in the way of effectively integrating technology in their classroom. Lacking support and having limited or undependable access, they often have little or no time to plan for using technology effectively (Diem, 2000; Keiper et al., 2000; Milson & Downey, 2001; Saye, 2000). They have to deal with different levels of computer abilities between themselves and their students as well as among their students. In addition, they often have to closely supervise their students to prevent them from accessing inappropriate web sites (Keiper et al., 2000). Consequently, even when they have the most advanced technology available, social studies teachers may well fall back on more traditional student activities (Sherman & Hicks, 2000). Social Studies Teacher Education And Computer Use Teacher education programs that prepare social studies teachers now actively encourage their faculty to incorporate technology in their courses (Dawson et al., 1999; Owens, 1999). When social studies educators integrate and model the use of computers in their college courses, preservice teachers tend to create more interactive learning activities (Keiper et al., 2000; Mason et al., 2000; Meyers, 1996). Thus, researchers in the

PAGE 84

73 field have now begun to issue guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers by suggesting five principles to guide the appropriate use of technology for preservice social studies teachers (Mason et al., 2000). Like others (Harris, 1998; Jonassen, 1996), Mason et al. (2000) argue that technology should not be used merely for the sake of using it, but rather to extend the learning experience itself, and that it should be introduced in an appropriate context related to the content being studied. In addition, they also suggest that technology be used to study the relationships among science, technology, and society (Mason et al., 2000). Furthermore, because educating students for democratic citizenship has always been an important issue in the social studies (Barr, Barth & Shermis, 1978), Mason et al. argue that social studies teachers must learn to use technology to encourage inquiry and perspective taking, and to facilitate civic learning, deliberation, and action. They argue that citizens in a democratic society need various types of knowledge, and that educators must begin to assess the ability of technology to advance these purposes of social education. Wondering whether technology will “bring us closer to larger democratic purposes,” Cuban (2001) expressed concern that “the next generation of Americans will wonder about the wisdom of previous reformers seeking technocratic solutions that ignored the broader civic and social roles of schools in a democratic society” (pp. 194-196). Future social studies teachers are therefore now strongly encouraged to use technology wisely for “the collective good” of the global world in which they live (Merryfield, 2000; Ross, 2000). Summary Recent advances in technology and access to computers and the Internet have created almost unimaginable opportunities for social studies teachers to use computers in

PAGE 85

74 their classroom in a way that goes beyond basic computer skills to include such things as web searching and publishing, presentation software, and multimedia (Becker, 1991, 1994, 1999; Davis, 1997; Ohler, 2000; White & Hubbard, 1988; Willis, 1997; Zhao, 2001). Depending on their level of self-efficacy and their philosophy of teaching, social studies teachers may not use computers at all, limit their use, or fully integrate them into their teaching (Becker, 1999; Conway & Zhao, 2001; Cuban, 2001; Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Fontana, 1997; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Heywood & Norman, 1988; Lloyd & Gressard, 1984; Marcinkiewicz, 1996; Martorella, 1997; Olivier & Shapiro, 1993; Strudler et al., 1999). Other factors such as the level of access (Becker, 1999; Technology Counts 2001; Zhao, 2001), institutional and organizational constraints (Becker, 1994; Cuban, 2001; Schofield, 1995), and the lack of professional development opportunities and administrative support (Becker, 1999; Dawson et al., 2000; Evans-Andris, 1995; Keiper et al., 2000; Ritchie, 1996; Schofield, 1995; Strudler et al., 1999; Willis, 1993; Zhao, 2001) affect the level of integration of computers in the social studies classroom (Becker, 1999; Dawson et al., 2000; Rogers, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997). Although some of the research suggests that beginning teachers use computers in their teaching less than might be expected (Becker, 1999; Marcinkiewicz, 1993-1994, 1996), it also suggests that when preservice teachers are exposed to the use of technology in their preparation program, there is a strong probability that they will in fact use it in their own preservice classroom experiences (Handler, 1993, Keiper et al., 2000; Stephens, 2000). As the access to and use of computers in the classroom becomes more widespread, social studies teacher preparation programs have increasingly begun to turn their attention to how computers can be used to improve effective teaching and learning

PAGE 86

75 (Cherup & Linklater, 2000; Handler, 1993; ISTE, 1998, 2000; NCATE, 1997; Willis, 1997; Zhao & Kendall, 2001). When studying history in particular, social studies teachers and students now have access to enormous amounts of information and historical sources, especially through the Internet, that allow them to engage in authentic tasks that involve “doing history” (Braun & Risinger, 1999; Dawson & Harris, 1999; Dawson et al, 1999; Keiper et al., 2000; Mason & Carter, 1999). As social studies teacher educators encourage their preservice teachers to integrate technology, they do so hoping that once these students become teachers themselves, they will believe that using computers is “worth it” and will use technology in their own classrooms (Diem, 1996; Handler, 1993; Harris, 1998; Mason et al., 2000; Stephens, 2000; Strudler et al., 1999). However, although the increased access to the Internet has created the opportunity for new and exciting constructivist approaches to teaching and learning history, social studies teachers also face a host of new issues related to students’ misperception of the Internet as the ultimate source for all their information, students’ inability to process and evaluate the available information, and the need to protect students from unsafe web sites (Berson et al., 1999; Berson et al., 2001; Dawson et al., 2000; Lipscomb, 2001; Mason et al., 2000; Pittman &McLaughlin, 2000; Risinger, 1998; Saye & Brush, 1999; Scott & O’Sullivan, 2000). At the same time, social studies teachers have only just begun to explore how using computers in their own classroom can further the civic goals of their discipline (Barr et al., 1978; Cuban, 2001; Fabos & Young, 1999; Mason et al, 2000; Merryfield, 2000; Ross, 2000).

PAGE 87

76 Summary Of The Review Of The Research Literature Beginning Social Studies Teachers And Technology: What We Know Beginning social studies teachers bring beliefs to the classroom about how to teach and what their students need to learn that have been shaped by their own personal experiences and those they have gained in their teacher education program. As they make the transition into the teaching profession, they often face profound professional as well as personal changes that may cause them to question their decision to become a teacher. While formal teacher induction programs seek to provide them with a support mechanism, often a less formal socialization process may provide them with much-needed additional support. For the past two decades, social studies has been moving in a new direction in which preservice teachers are encouraged to engage their students in authentic, constructivist tasks. In particular, when teaching history, they are strongly encouraged to help their students learn to think historically, and to involve their students in historical inquiry, especially by having them consider multiple perspectives and engage in historical empathy exercises. Especially with recent advances in computer technology and the Internet, social studies teachers now have access to vast amounts of historical information that until recently were only available to professional scholars. However, while new technology offers many exciting opportunities for innovative approaches to teaching and learning, social studies teachers must also consider its downside. In addition to such traditional barriers as lack of access and time, social studies teachers must also consider the extent to which technology actually contributes to student learning and promotes civic competence in today’s interdependent world.

PAGE 88

77 Beginning Social Studies Teachers And Technology: What We Do Not Know The research on beginning social studies teachers’ use of technology in their classroom is still nascent. Little is known about what actually happens in the classrooms of beginning social studies teachers who have been strongly encouraged by their teacher education programs to integrate technology in their history classes in an effort to engage their students in historical inquiry. In addition, there is insufficient research concerning the factors that determine how well beginning social studies teachers are in fact able to integrate technology into their teaching of history. What is the impact of their beliefs about teaching and learning, and of their induction experiences into the profession? How does their personal understanding of historical thinking and historical inquiry, and perspective taking and historical empathy in particular, affect how they use technology, and what are the incentives and barriers they face in their respective schools when it comes to using technology? In a broader sense, these questions seek to identify the issues that are involved in beginning social studies teachers’ decisions regarding whether the use of computers in their respective history classrooms is worth it. As a result, based on the review of the research literature, the following three major research questions emerged: (1) How well prepared was a typical beginning social studies teacher, who graduated from the PROTEACH program, to use technology in his or her classroom to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? (2) How well was this beginning social studies teacher able to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy?

PAGE 89

78 (3) How well did the infrastructure of the school in which the teacher taught enable him/her to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy?

PAGE 90

CHAPTER 3 METHODS Introduction Berson (1996) has argued that much of the research on the use of computer technology in the social studies has been impressionistic and anecdotal due to flawed methodologies. Cuban (2001) has argued that teacher self-reports tend to overestimate the frequency of computer use, whereas Oliver (1994) has maintained that such a measure fails to consider the very quality of that use. As a result, this research study involved extensive fieldwork in the actual classroom (Cornett, 1990). Furthermore, such fieldwork was suggested by the nature of the research questions in this research study: (1) How well prepared was a typical beginning social studies teacher, who graduated from the PROTEACH program, to use technology in his or her classroom to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? (2) How well was this beginning social studies teacher able to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? (3) How well did the infrastructure of the school in which the teacher taught enable him/her to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? Since this study sought to interpret how beginning social studies teachers actually use technology to help their students grasp such concepts as historical thinking, multiple 79

PAGE 91

80 perspectives, and historical empathy, I chose to use an inductive, multiple-case approach in a naturalistic, non-controlled, setting (Hutchinson, 1997; Merriam, 1998; Miles &Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). In the tradition of Dilthey, (Erickson, 1986) has argued that the methods of the human sciences should be interpretative with the aim of discovering how people construct their own unique meaning, and how similar surface behaviors, or physical acts, often mask an underlying diversity. Consequently, it is action-the physical behavior plus the meaning interpretations held by the actor-that matters most in interpretative research (see also Hutchinson, 1997; Lee, 2000; Stake, 1995). Thus, a case study design is employed to gain an understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved. It involves an inductive process of discovering the world “as seen through the eyes of the participants” (Hutchinson, 1997, p. 124), and is “begun with no prior expectations that might limit the fieldworker’s openness to the uniqueness of experience in the setting” from which patterns will emerge (Erickson, 1986, p. 139). Because evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and tends to make the study more robust, I chose to select multiple observation sites (see Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). As an interpretative researcher, I chose not to use a theoretical approach, but rather sought to understand how each beginning social studies teacher constructed meaning in his or her own local situation. Based on preliminary communications, I chose to select a purposive sample of four beginning teachers who appeared to be favorably disposed towards the use of computer technology in their social studies classroom. This multiple-case approach enabled me to focus on each individual teacher’s use of technology while replicating the research protocol at each separate school site. The research protocol

PAGE 92

81 focused on each social studies teacher’s use, as well as his or her students’ use, of computer technology at the four separate school sites. Of course, the qualitative nature of this study required rich, thick description of each teacher’s local context. Participants and Setting Each of the participants in this study was a graduate of the secondary social studies PROTEACH program at the University of Florida. As part of the program, all social studies students took a course entitled Integrating Technology in Social Studies, which included an on-line case discussion, lessons on digital archives, web evaluation, webquests, discussion of copyright and the Internet, simulations, social studies software, PowerPoint presentations, analysis of the National Educational Technology Standards, and telecollaboration. The students were required to complete three major assignments: They created a PowerPoint presentation, a webquest, and a telecollaborative project, all of which they might be able to use in their own future classroom. The course emphasized a constructivist approach to social studies and--as elsewhere in their program--the students were strongly encouraged to use technology to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry. The four participants in this study graduated in August of 2000 and accepted teaching positions in the local area near the University of Florida. I contacted them and obtained formal permission from each of these beginning social studies teachers to participate in the study. Congruent with the university’s research protocol, I also obtained permission from their respective school districts. The letter of consent assured each teacher’s anonymity, promised that all collected data would be kept confidential, and established that their participation or non-participation in the study would have no effect whatsoever on any evaluation of their professional performance for rehiring purposes. In

PAGE 93

82 addition, the students’ parents received a letter of consent to request formal permission for their children to participate in the study. This letter of consent assured each student’s anonymity, promised that all collected data would be kept confidential, and established that participation or non-participation would have no effect whatsoever on their child’s academic grade. The resultant setting for this study consisted of two middle and two high school classrooms for the duration of an entire school year, as illustrated in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Participants and Field Sites Teacher School Subject Grade Level N Elizabeth Ireland Creekside Middle School World Cultures 6 29 Mark Dryden Highland Middle School American History 8 27 American History 8 25 Brian Benvenuto Palmetto High School World History 10 31 Thom Noble Magnolia High School American History 11 30 American History 11 24 World History 10 22 Each school used some version of the block schedule, with classes lasting from 80 to 100 minutes each. Some classes met each day for the duration of a semester, others met on alternating days throughout the entire school year, whereas yet another yearlong class met each Monday for a regular 50-minute period and for a block period on Tuesdays and Thursdays. All courses I observed were history courses. One middle school course, although labeled World Cultures, was in essence a world history course and had an enrollment of

PAGE 94

83 29 sixth-grade students. The two yearlong middle school courses in American History were taught to, respectively, 27 and 25 eighth-grade students. The two high school World History courses had an enrollment of, respectively, 31 and 22 tenth-grade students, whereas two American History courses had, respectively, 30 and 24 eleventh-grade enrolled students. The middle school American History course consisted of a survey of American history through Reconstruction, whereas the high school American History course surveyed the nation’s history from the colonial period up to the present. The World History courses, both at the middle and high school level, comprised a survey of humankind’s history from its early beginnings up to the present day. Elizabeth Ireland was the only female teacher who participated in the study. Having enjoyed her own education, she thought that returning to teach school was a natural choice for her. After majoring in political science, with a minor in education, she decided to enter the PROTEACH social studies program. Now an excited 24-year-old beginning teacher, Elizabeth thought it was especially important to make history relevant to students’ lives. She taught World Cultures at Creekside Middle School, which was a division within a K-12 school with a population of about 1,200 students. The middle school’s student population consisted of approximately 360 students in grades 6-8. The school itself was located in a largely urban environment but also drew a significant segment of its student population from the surrounding rural communities. Approximately 68 percent of the middle school students were white, 21 percent were African American, 7 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent from other ethnic groups.

PAGE 95

84 Like Elizabeth, Mark Dryden earned his undergraduate degree in political science. Having spent time in the Reserve Officer Training Corps [ROTC], Mark proudly displayed a photograph of his unit in his classroom. Although he often appeared unemotional, behind this faade there was nonetheless a person who deeply cared about his students. Twenty-three years old at the time of the study, Mark and his wife were expecting their first baby, a fact I did not find out about until one day I arrived at the school to be told to my surprise that he had become a father the night before. After returning to school, he proudly displayed his newborn son on his computer monitor. Mark taught American History in the major program at Highland Middle School, which had a population of approximately 1160 students in grades 6-8. The school was located in a largely urban area, and, while it included a technology magnet, drew the majority of its regular students from the lower socioeconomic segment of the community. Approximately 45 percent of students in the total school population were white, 51 percent African American, 3 percent Hispanic, and 1 percent from other ethnic groups. Brian Benvenuto had an education background. While his mother no longer taught, at the time of the study, his father still served as a school principal. Twenty-six years old, Brian shared his father’s passion for education and basketball. Having earned his undergraduate degree in history, Brian decided to become a teacher as well. Hoping to get married in the near future, he and his fiance graduated at the same time, moved to a new town together, and both became beginning teachers, although in different subject areas. Brian taught World History at Palmetto High School in a large urban area. The school had a population of approximately 1670 students. Although the school purported to include an engineering and technology magnet, there was little evidence of its viability

PAGE 96

85 as a program. About 98 percent of the students were African American, 1 percent white, and 1 percent from other ethnic groups. At the time of the study, Thom Noble was 30 years old and married, with a son in the first grade. Since his father served in the U.S. Coast Guard, as a child Thom moved around every few years. While he did not like moving around so often, it helped him to expand his horizons. After earning an undergraduate degree in anthropology, his love of history led him to the decision to become teacher. Assigned to be the assistant soccer coach, Thom taught American History and World History at Magnolia High School, which was situated in a largely rural community. The school had a student population of approximately 1520 students. Almost 90 percent of its students were white, while 4 percent were African American, 4 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent Asian. Design of the Study Procedures for Collecting Data Data collection for this research study included observations in the participants’ classrooms at each of the four school sites for the duration of an entire school year. Also, each of the four teachers participated in an interview at the beginning as well as the end of the school year. Furthermore, those students whose parents agreed to their participation in the study completed a survey about the use of computers in their social studies classroom, while at each school site a small group of students also participated in an interview toward the end of their history course. Finally, throughout the year, whenever possible, I collected documents including lesson plans, student learning activities, student work, evaluations of student work, as well as official school accountability reports.

PAGE 97

86 Observations This study included observations throughout an entire school year. While I followed a regular visitation schedule, I asked the teachers to give me advance notice about when they would be teaching a unit or lesson that involved the use of technology. This approach led to periods during which I intensively spent time observing at one particular school site. As the only researcher in this study, however, I found that this decision unfortunately precluded me sometimes from conducting in-depth observations at the other school sites. Depending on what was occurring, I would position myself in the back or to the side of the classroom, or accompany the teacher and students to the computer lab. As a qualitative researcher, I chose to participate to the least extent possible in the activities I observed in the classroom (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). I tried to make my presence unobtrusive, occasionally roaming around the classroom or lab to observe what students were doing on the computer and sometimes asking clarification questions. I typically concluded each observation with informal conversation with the teachers in order to give them an opportunity to discuss experiences with the class on that particular day. Throughout each observation I took extensive field notes, which included writing research memos to myself. Interviews Both at the beginning and the end of the school year, each of the four teachers participated in a formal interview guided by an interview protocol (see Appendix A and Appendix B). Each of these eight interviews lasted approximately one hour and probed the teachers’ reasons for becoming or continuing as a teacher, their appraisal of the PROTEACH social studies program, their personal understandings of historical thinking

PAGE 98

87 and inquiry, perspective taking, and historical empathy, their assessment of how to use computers to teach historical inquiry, as well as their assessment of the technology infrastructure and support for using computers at their particular school site. Each interview was tape-recorded. After transcribing the interview, I destroyed each tape-recording. In addition, near the end of their course, at all four school sites small groups of four students each participated in a formal interview guided by an interview protocol (see Appendix C). I chose to conduct the seven interviews with the students (one interview group for each course) during the last two weeks of a particular term so that the students would have an opportunity to reflect on what they had experienced while things were still fresh on their minds. Normally it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to interview students once they had completed a course and their schedule had changed. For each of the interviews, I asked the teacher to suggest four students who represented a reasonable cross-section of different ethnic groups as well as ability and interest levels in his or her course. Each of these interviews lasted nearly one hour and revealed the students’ opinions about their history courses and teachers. I also asked them to explain their understandings of historical thinking and inquiry, perspective taking, and historical empathy; their views on computer use in their social studies classes; their opinions on whether they got to use computers enough; and whether they felt their school had adequate equipment and support for using computers. Each of these interviews was tape-recorded. After transcribing the interviews, I destroyed each tape-recording. Survey After the students had been enrolled in the history course for approximately two months, 152 students who had returned the letter of consent signed by their parents

PAGE 99

88 participated in a written survey (see Appendix D). This survey was conducted anonymously, although each student was asked to indicate his or her age, gender, and ethnic background. The survey used a conventional Likert scale to measure the degree to which the students liked social studies and to what extent using computers made the subject interesting to them. The survey also asked questions about whether their school had enough computers, whether any of their social studies teachers had ever used computers in their classes before, whether their school had enough computers, and whether they got to spend enough time using the computers. In addition, the students answered questions about how much and where they used computers to complete schoolwork, including social studies assignments. Finally they were asked whether the principal, other administrators, their teachers, fellow students, and parents thought that using computers was important. Procedures for Analyzing and Reporting Data The data I collected in this research study consisted of field notes obtained during classroom observations, transcribed interviews with the teachers and students, a student survey, as well as documents including lesson plans, student learning activities, student work, evaluations of student work, and official school accountability reports. Analyzing the data To analyze the field notes and the teacher and student interviews, I used an interpretative approach. Using the constant comparative method (Hutchinson, 1997; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994), I discerned confirming as well as disconfirming evidence to determine common themes within the data from each separate school site (Erickson, 1986). Only after analyzing each case separately did I cross-analyze the four

PAGE 100

89 cases to ascertain if there were any common patterns across the four particular school sites (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). While interpretative research may result in possible mistakes due to inadequate amounts of evidence, lack of variety in the kinds of evidence, faulty interpretation, inadequate disconfirming evidence, as well inadequate analysis of any disconfirming evidence (Erickson, 1986), I attempted to triangulate my findings whenever possible by relying on as many sources of evidence as possible, including documents I collected throughout the entire school year (Yin, 1994). The analysis of the student surveys included the limited use of a descriptive and analytical statistical methodology. This analysis served to quantify some of the students’ predispositions towards social studies and the use of computers in social studies and elsewhere. Reporting the data According to Erickson (1986), there are nine elements of reporting the data: empirical assertions, analytic narrative vignettes, quotes from field notes, quotes from interviews, synoptic data reports, interpretative commentary framing particular description, interpretative commentary framing general description, theoretical discussion, and a report of the natural history of inquiry in the study. I included all these elements in my presentation of the findings in Chapter 4. I especially chose to use empirical assertions, as they constitute an effective way to present the inferences that emerged from the data. In addition, two narrative vignettes are used to present vivid portrayals of typical everyday events to illustrate a specific assertion.

PAGE 101

90 Validity The purposive sample I used in this research study was not representative of a specific population. Since the participants in this study do not represent a random sample from a large population, the responsibility to generalize from this study resides with the reader rather than with the researcher (Erickson, 1986; Stake, 1995). Moreover, since all qualitative research is subjective, it is up to the reader to accept the validity of the findings. However, to enhance the internal validity of this study, I triangulated my findings, checked my understandings against those of the participants, and observed the participants on many occasions throughout an entire school year (see Merriam, 1998). As this study cannot be replicated, the reliability of its findings is bound by the assumptions of qualitative research. Natural History According to Erickson (1986), reports of fieldwork research often omit a discussion of how key concepts in the analysis developed or unexpected patterns were encountered in the field setting and subsequent reflection. Therefore, he suggested writing a natural history of the inquiry to show how the author’s thinking changed during the course of the study. The research questions for this study resulted from several of my personal interests and experiences, including nearly two decades of classroom experience as a social studies teacher in the public schools, then as a graduate student in educational leadership and social studies education. These experiences led me to consider the possibilities of using technology to introduce young students to such concepts as historical thinking, perspective taking, and historical empathy. Simultaneously, however, my “practicality ethic” (Cuban, 1984) as a practicing classroom teacher in a technology-rich school

PAGE 102

91 caused me to question the feasibility of using computers in a regular classroom setting, and then to speculate that a chasm appears to exist between what teacher education programs advocate with regard to the use of technology in the social studies classroom and the extent of its actual implementation in a public school setting. These interests and experiences led me to select four beginning social studies teachers at four different kinds of schools in order to observe how they actually dealt with this issue. Although there were instances in which a teacher asked for my direct input, I maintained my status as a non-participant observer throughout the entire year. I consciously decided not to participate in any of the classroom activities so as not to influence teacher or student behavior. Only on two occasions did I speak directly to all students, each time for approximately ten minutes. During my first visit to the classroom, I briefly introduced myself and explained the reasons for my presence. On the second occasion, I addressed the students to give instructions and administer the survey. Throughout the entire school year, and at each school site, the students appeared to take my presence for granted. They generally went about their activities as if I were not there. On those rare occasions when a student tried to engage me in conversation, I kept the communication to a minimum. Only during the student interviews did I speak at length with a few students. These small group interviews always took place in a location other than the classroom, in order to encourage the students to speak freely, which they appeared to do. On those occasions when a teacher asked for feedback or suggestions, I reported what I had observed, but without explicitly suggesting how they might modify their classroom practices.

PAGE 103

92 During the formal interviews with the teachers and students, I was generally able to closely follow the questionnaire protocol. However, especially after one of the four teachers chose to leave the social studies classroom after the first semester, the need to modify the exit interview protocol became apparent. Hence, I decided to include questions in the teachers’ exit interview that asked them to reflect not only on how effective they had been in using technology in their classrooms, but also on their general experiences as beginning teachers, and whether and why they had chosen to continue teaching social studies. In my data analysis, Erickson's assertions (1984) provided an especially effective framework for the development of key concepts. My use of the constant comparative method to analyze the data obtained from classroom observations, teacher and student interviews, a student survey, and the documents I collected resulted in five analytical assertions, which are presented in Chapter 4.

PAGE 104

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of a research study related to the use of computer technology by four beginning social studies teachers in their history courses during their first year in the classroom. Specifically, this study involved an assessment of the ability of beginning social studies teachers to use computer technology to teach their students historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy, as based on three research questions: (1) How well prepared was a typical beginning social studies teacher, who graduated from the PROTEACH program, to use technology in his or her classroom to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? (2) How well was this beginning social studies teacher able to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? (3) How well did the infrastructure of the school in which the teacher taught enable him/her to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? A review of the literature and the findings of this research study suggest a focus on five major areas: the beliefs beginning social studies teachers bring to the classroom; their induction into the profession; their own as well as their students’ understandings of 93

PAGE 105

94 historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy; their actual use of computer technology in the classroom to teach historical inquiry, and an assessment of the impact of each school’s technology infrastructure on the teaching and learning process in their social studies classrooms. Based on Erickson’s interpretative research methodology, five major assertions emerged from the data. They are: Assertion 1: The beliefs these beginning social studies teachers brought to the classroom profoundly impacted their students’ appreciation of the subject area. Assertion 2: These graduates from the PROTEACH social studies program believed they were well prepared to be successful in the classroom and focused on professional concerns in their induction, including the lack of effective support for the successful integration of technology in their classroom. Assertion 3: Due to their own understandings of historical thinking and historical inquiry, these beginning social studies teachers often had difficulty engaging their students in historical inquiry, especially when using technology. Assertion 4: The experiences these beginning social studies teachers had in their teacher preparation program profoundly impacted their efforts to integrate technology into their teaching of historical inquiry as they were innovators with pedagogical content knowledge. Assertion 5: Regardless of the available technology, each teacher’s sense of self-efficacy created a unique personal response to the challenges posed by his/her school’s infrastructure and culture. Teacher Beliefs The beliefs that these teachers held about the education of young children had a profound impact on what went on in their classroom as they made day-to-day decisions concerning the content matter that got taught and the types of learning experiences their students would have. The experiences their students had in the classroom in turn influenced their beliefs about the social studies as well.

PAGE 106

95 Assertion 1 The beliefs these beginning social studies teachers brought to the classroom profoundly impacted their students’ appreciation of the subject area. Teacher beliefs about social studies Teacher beliefs have a profound impact on classroom practice. All four teachers in this study decided to enter the profession because of an appreciation of social studies and their desire to work with children. While only Brian had a father who still worked as a classroom teacher, these teachers all had enjoyed their own education in such a way that “returning to school and just switching roles was a natural choice” (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000). Likewise, teaching social studies enabled them to “stay with the content” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001) and “convey some of [their] enthusiasm to the students” so they would be able to find out that social studies “can [in fact] be a little more interesting than they [had] been led to believe so far” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). In addition, working and developing a rapport with children was an equally motivating factor in becoming a classroom teacher, as these teachers “enjoyed seeing students learn” (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2002). Having made the decision to go into the teaching profession, each of the four teachers in this study brought to the classroom a set of philosophical as well as pedagogical goals. For example, Mark believed that “humans have such a finite time on the earth” that there is “no better way to impact what is going to happen in the world than to teach young children” (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000). For all four teachers, an important aspect of their philosophy was to create productive, open-minded, and participatory citizens. Brian and Thom both emphasized the importance of teaching

PAGE 107

96 multiple perspectives, multiculturalism and tolerance, as “children can be very harsh on each other” (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000; Thom, Interview, 9/15/200). Thom argued that, while he was not trying “to reconstruct society,” he just wanted to be able to reach some of the children and show them that society could be improved (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). All four teachers stressed the importance of their students gaining content knowledge. As middle school teachers, however, Elizabeth and Mark specifically wanted their students to acquire basic skills in reading, writing and note taking, as well as a sense of civility. Elizabeth and Brian also emphasized the importance of making history relevant to their students by making connections with the present. These teachers also expressed a desire to conduct their classes with a more student-centered approach and make history more interesting to their students by using less direct instruction and more varied activities, thus having the students “do some of their own learning” (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000), and “[spicing] things up” (Elizabeth, Observation, 5/22/2001). Thom summarized all their philosophies best when he said he wanted to be a teacher that the students not only like but can actually learn something from as well. I don’t want to be boring, just get up there and talk. That’s why I try to bring in [things such as] technology as much as possible (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). The teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical goals, however, were often tempered by the reality of being a first-year classroom teacher. They unanimously indicated that their major goal was to simply survive the first year, to get through, and “not go crazy and say I’m never going to teach again” (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000). They often cited

PAGE 108

97 a lack of time, in that they had to not only develop their own curriculum but also attend many meetings. The goals they hoped to accomplish for themselves during the first year included becoming comfortable in the classroom, improving their own content knowledge, and building a foundation that they would be able to revisit in subsequent years. As Thom indicated, “I knew I wasn’t going to be a great teacher off the bat, but that’s what I hope to become” (Thom, Interview, 05/22/2001). The issue of getting rehired to teach the next year at the same school also figured prominently on the minds of these teachers. Consequently, concerns about classroom management centered on finding an appropriate balance between their relationships with the students and a focus on learning. This often proved difficult; they tried not to be “buddy-buddy with the students” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000) but instead to focus on teaching basic skills, bringing in different perspectives, developing critical thinking skills, and increasing their students’ awareness and tolerance of diverse peoples, an awareness that the teachers hoped the students would be able to take back to their local communities. At each school the pressure to cover the Sunshine State Standards, Florida’s state-mandated curriculum, pushed the four teachers in this study into a rather pragmatic approach to teaching. Evidence of this phenomenon was on the back wall of Brian’s room; the local school board had mandated that the standards must be prominently displayed in each classroom. Several large posters listed all of the standards he was required to cover in his course, and during any given observation Brian was able to merely point at the wall to indicate his progress in covering the standards. Furthermore,

PAGE 109

98 despite their professed goals to the contrary, all four teachers in this study relied heavily on their textbook as a guide for what they believed they had to cover in their respective courses. At the end of the school year, all four teachers unanimously agreed that their relationships with the students had been the most rewarding of their experiences, and that even “really positive feedback from the principal and some of my colleagues” did not “seem as important as the feedback from the kids” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). While their comments focused mostly on the personal relationships they developed with their students, they also addressed their students’ learning. Elizabeth expressed her excitement when her students “just the other day [showed they had] really learned something,” and she appreciated the fact that they felt comfortable enough with her to express their own opinions (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2001). Likewise, Brian expressed a sense of accomplishment when his students appeared to grasp the moral dilemmas faced by the main characters in the movie The Mission (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). While Elizabeth felt “worn down a lot physically, especially during the first semester” (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2001), these teachers’ most discouraging experiences focused on issues related to classroom management. While some of their discouragement related to poor student behavior, other concerns these teachers expressed revolved around their students’ apathy and lack of interest in school. Brian became especially upset when one of his troubled students, who showed great potential when he was in school and did his work, was expelled for fighting, but he felt equally dismayed by the fact that many of his students did not seem to appreciate the opportunities he tried to offer them with technology (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). Thom regretted that he had

PAGE 110

99 failed to establish a routine from the start, whereas Mark felt so overwhelmed at times that he felt unable to do much about student misbehavior (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). After their first year, all four teachers in this study decided to continue to teach. Due to financial worries, however, Brian decided to switch to teaching technology courses, hoping this change would create new career opportunities for him. Interestingly, however, these teachers all expressed a desire to either move on to teaching at a higher level or to find some other way to reap greater financial rewards. As Elizabeth put it, although she “definitely [was] not bolting from the profession” (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2001), she had entertained thoughts about pursuing an administrative position or beginning course work towards an advanced degree. Similarly, Mark and Thom both expressed a desire ultimately to teach at the junior college or university level. Although none of these teachers made any explicit references to their teacher preparation program in shaping their beliefs, their goals to teach students to consider multiple perspectives, appreciate multiculturalism, and become tolerant, participatory citizens reflected the goals of the PROTEACH program. These beliefs were perhaps best reflected in how well they were able to instill an appreciation of history in their own students. Student beliefs about social studies Just like their social studies teachers, the students in this study came to the classroom with preexisting beliefs about the subject. In their interviews, these students’ responses to the question of whether they liked social studies ranged from “boring” to “exciting.” However, especially at the middle school level, the students appeared overall to like social studies, although for somewhat different reasons than at the high school

PAGE 111

100 level. Following are some of their comments from interviews in which they participated, with pseudonyms used to identify them individually. One student explained that he liked learning about people who lived before him because “it’s good to learn about the past so you know about the future” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). Interestingly, Elizabeth’s sixth grade students tended to view social studies in terms of learning “neat things about history” so they could “outsmart their parents and maybe know something they don’t know” (Charlotte, Interview, 5/9/2001), or to “talk to my mom and dad about those things,” and “know what they’re talking about when they talk about certain things” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). Mark’s eighth grade students described their social studies experiences during the previous year as boring because “all [they] did was work out of books" (Heather, Interview, 5/1/2002), whereas this year "it was a lot cooler” because "Mr. Dryden used PowerPoint" and engaged them in projects and group activities (Allen, Interview, 5/1/2002). At the high school level, the students’ responses were more mixed. Some of Brian’s sophomores argued that “history deals with what is going on in the world” (Sheena, Interview, 12/8/2000) and that it helps us to know that “we make the same mistakes that people have made in the past” (Tanya, Interview, 12/8/2000). Ranson, one of Thom’s sophomores, argued that knowing about the past helps us to “predict what will happen in the future” (Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001). On the other hand, a sophomore in Brian’s class was adamant that “she [didn’t] really like [social studies] because [although] the past is going to affect us . . . it ain’t helping us to get no job” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). While several of Thom’s juniors expressed the idea that it is the teacher who can make social studies exciting, they also generally expressed a deeper appreciation of

PAGE 112

101 social studies as a valuable way “to learn more about the backgrounds of different peoples” (Jahan, Interview, 12/12/2000). The students’ responses in the interviews suggested that the role of the teacher is especially important, since they did not have any strong preconceived notions about what they might actually learn in their history courses. When asked what he was hoping to learn in his World Cultures class during the current academic year, Eric held some vague notions of learning about “something like a culture” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). And whereas Els, one of Elizabeth's students, talked of learning about ancient civilizations, Juli did not have any ideas about what he hoped to learn (Els and Juli, Interview, 5/9/2001). Likewise, some of Mark’s eighth grade American History students “didn’t expect anything, to tell you the truth” (Jerome, Interview, 5/5/2001) or thought they would be learning “about our history” (Allen, Interview, 5/1/2001) or “like history of the past and everything” (Heather, Interview, 5/5/2001). Only a few of his students were able to talk specifically about, for example, learning about colonial times or the Civil War era. At the high school level, the World History students had similar vague notions that they were going to be learning about “different wars and colonies and stuff because that is what you learn basically year after year” (Tamara, Interview, 5/22/2001). Some of Thom’s American History students also remarked that through the years they had learned the same things over and over, and “skimmed over the top of everything” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2000) but “didn’t really understand it all until this year” (Robin, Interview, 12/12/2000). Only some of Thom’s juniors expressed an explicit desire “to actually understand” (Robin, Interview, 12/12/200), “get more in-depth” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2001), and learn about more recent history because “it seems like in

PAGE 113

102 every history class you get to World War II and then you’re out of history” (Tim, Interview, 12/12/2000). Interestingly, at the four schools in this study, the 152 students who completed a survey using a Likert scale (1 strongly disagree . . . 5 strongly agree; see Appendix D), indicated they tended to like social studies ( M 3.57, SD 1.07; see Appendix D, Table D-2), make good grades in the subject ( M 3.88, SD 1.1; see Appendix D, Table D-2), and like their social studies teacher very much ( M 4.49, SD 0.91; see Appendix D, Table D-2). The survey also indicated a positive correlation between whether these students liked social studies and their social studies teacher ( r .48; see Appendix D, Table D-5), whether they liked social studies and made good grades in the subject ( r .62; see Appendix D, Table D-5), and whether they liked their social studies teacher and made good grades in the subject ( r 36; see Appendix D, Table D-5). A comparison of the students’ responses to whether they liked their social studies teacher revealed a statistically significant difference between the seven courses ( F (6,145) 7.22, p 9.32E-07; see Appendix D, Table D-3), in that Elizabeth and Brian’s students rated their teachers lower than the students in Mark and Thom’s courses did (see Appendix D, Table D-4, Item 3). Furthermore, although not statistically significantly different, Brian’s students’ ratings were also the lowest on whether they liked social studies and made good grades in the subject (see Appendix D, Table D-1). At each of the four schools in this study, the students commented frequently that they especially liked having a young teacher who knew how to make history interesting. Elizabeth’s students indicated that she made history fun because she did not simply make them “do worksheets” but rather gave them group activities, which gave them an

PAGE 114

103 opportunity to “experience” what it was like to live in an early civilization, and made them “want to learn it” (Charlotte and Juli, Interview, 5/9/2001). Many of Mark and Thom’s students also commented on their teacher’s young age and ability to relate to them. For example, referring to Mark, Maxine remarked that he was not like “some [other] teachers who don’t have open ears” (Maxine, Interview, 5/1/2001). Mark’s students liked the fact that he could laugh and joke with them and that he was not as strict as some of their other teachers. But even so, they seemed to appreciate that he tried to “find new and exciting ways for us” and liked “to experiment with us” (Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001). While the students in this study appreciated the fact that these beginning social studies teachers could relate to them, they were also well aware of their shortcomings. For example, describing Brian as “just [a] down to earth” teacher who would "let you come to class late, does not give much homework, helps you with makeup work, and gives out the answers ahead of the test," Keandra admitted that Brian's students sometimes took advantage of him (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). Thom’s students likewise described him as a caring and understanding teacher, and also realized that they sometimes took advantage of his leniency. Nonetheless, they appreciated Thom’s humor, his willingness to work with them individually and not just give them seatwork to do in class, and that he cared about their grades rather than “just want to get you out of the class” (Kaylen, Interview, 5/22/2001). Thom’s juniors especially appreciated that he was able “to talk on [their] level, and [made them] understand” (Robin, Interview, 12/12/2000), as well as used “the technology well,” and let them interact and do projects (Tim, Interview, 12/12/2001). Describing

PAGE 115

104 Thom as “a wonderful person” and “her favorite teacher,” Tamika admitted that she liked going to class and that, even though she talked “sometimes,” she still “learn[ed] a lot” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/200). James, one of Thom’s students, perhaps best synthesized what all the interviewed students tried to convey about how these beginning social studies teachers impacted them: I think a good aspect of his teaching is that he’s a relatively young teacher and so he’s still got a fresh outlook on what he’s doing, and he’s learning and going through everything as he’s teaching and he hasn’t gotten into one of those boring patterns where you do everything the same way, and that’s the way it is. (James, Interview, 12/12/2000) Summary The beginning social studies teachers in this study, who graduated from the PROTEACH program, emphasized the importance of teaching content knowledge as well as developing strong relationships with their students. Although they were concerned about surviving their first year and getting rehired, their youthful enthusiasm and willingness to engage in more student-centered learning activities instilled in many of their students, who often lacked any strong preconceived notions about what they might actually learn in their history courses, a new appreciation for social studies. Teacher Induction Having completed their graduate-level, one-year teacher preparation program, the four beginning social studies teachers in this study continued their induction into the teaching profession and their subject-area subculture. This process of professional socialization included professional as well as personal concerns and was accompanied by both formal as well as informal support structures.

PAGE 116

105 Assertion 2 These graduates from the PROTEACH social studies program believed they were well prepared to be successful in the classroom and focused on professional concerns in their induction, including the lack of effective support for the successful integration of technology in their classroom. Teacher preparation As they embarked upon their first year in the classroom, the beginning social studies teachers in this study felt very well prepared by their PROTEACH teacher preparation program. During their interviews in the early fall and late spring they indicated that PROTEACH had made an important difference in the way they felt prepared to meet the challenges of starting out as a new teacher. In general, their comments during the interviews in the spring reiterated and confirmed what they had previously said during the interviews in the fall, which were conducted at a time when they had been in the classroom less than two months. Elizabeth thought very highly of PROTEACH, and believed that it had prepared her how to do things well (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000). Thom argued that it gave him an idea of what he was getting into, because without it he “would have been completely lost” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). In addition, comparing himself to another beginning teacher at his school who had graduated from a four-year program, Thom indicated that he was “not as nave” and “far better prepared than any other new teacher,” and that having gone through PROTEACH “was totally worth it” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Brian similarly commented that he could “tell the difference between those who went through PROTEACH and those who didn’t.” He argued that people could tell “that teachers who [went] through a good teacher preparation program . . . are active with

PAGE 117

106 their students, are up [on things], know a lot of the terms, know a lot of the techniques to use, [and] are leaps and bounds over the teachers that don’t” (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). These teachers singled out the practicum and internship experiences, and learning how to develop lesson plans, as the two major strengths of the PROTEACH program. As preservice teachers with undergraduate degrees in political science, anthropology, and history, these beginning teachers said they had entered the program with a limited conception of how to become an effective teacher. Elizabeth indicated that she “had no idea what a lesson plan was, how to go about presenting it, [and] how to . . . research for the lesson” (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2001). Mark argued that while PROTEACH taught him how to prepare a lesson, it also made him comfortable “to try some of these daring types of projects” and got him “to use other resources than the textbook” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). The two three-week practicums in the fall and the three-month internship in the spring constituted another significant learning experience. According to Elizabeth, the fall practicums gave her a good introduction to the classroom and the opportunity to become comfortable around students, especially since she had always been somewhat hesitant about “public speaking” (Elizabeth, Interview, 919/2000). All four teachers felt the internship provided them with a unique opportunity to “see a little bit about the difference between how education ideally is and how it really is” (Thom, 9/15/2000). Furthermore, as they were required to take course work while completing their internships, “the amount of work [they] had really prepared [them] well for [the first] year” (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000), or as Brian said, “ I was staying up late every night working, now I’m teaching and still staying up every day late, so it [was] kind of like a mini boot camp” (Brian, 9/29/2000).

PAGE 118

107 While the teachers were overwhelmingly positive about the PROTEACH program, they identified a few areas in which they could have been better prepared. Elizabeth and Thom both would have preferred longer practicums and a longer internship. Perhaps because of the particular student population he taught, Mark believed that PROTEACH was geared too much towards the more intelligent students and too little towards the less gifted students, who “really need a worksheet, vocabulary words, and things like that” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). Both Brian and Thom also felt there was a big learning curve during the first semester of PROTEACH and that some of the courses during the second semester were redundant. But, as Thom indicated, “when you’re there and you’re busy, you have a different perspective, but now that I’ve actually gone through it, I think it was totally worth it” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Professional concerns The beginning social studies teachers in this study had no professional concerns resulting from exceedingly high expectations or a lack of confidence. While Brian taught at Palmetto High School, a disadvantaged school, in a dark, gloomy classroom with one narrow floor-to-ceiling window, at the somewhat less disadvantaged Highland Middle School Mark found himself in a portable building on the far outskirts of the campus. Although these teachers all had their own classrooms, Elizabeth and Thom were fortunate to teach in rather attractive classrooms with large windows that looked out on a well-kept campus. While class size in each of the seven courses ranged from 22 to 31 students, this did not appear to be a major concern to any of the teachers. In terms of diversity in the student population, the situation varied: Almost all of Brian’s students were African American, whereas almost all of Thom’s were Caucasian. Elizabeth and Mark’s middle

PAGE 119

108 school students represented a more diverse student population that was more evenly divided between African American and Caucasian students. Brian’s students presented an additional professional challenge due to poor attendance. For example, one day, at the beginning of the term, I observed that 15 of his 31 students were absent (Brian, Observation, 8/29/2000), whereas on another day, near the end of the course, 19 were absent. On this last day, nine of his absent students' names were included on a list of 119 suspended students. This number of suspended students amounted to about seven percent of Palmetto High School’s population (Brian, Observation, 12/8/2000). Furthermore, having taught less than two months, Brian received a letter from an attorney addressed to the teachers of one of his students who had been suspended for bringing a gun to school (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). Mark faced the challenge of having students with physical disabilities in one of his classes, in that one of his students was confined to a wheelchair while another suffered from ataxia. Although developing a curriculum was a concern for these teachers, only Thom’s principal required weekly lesson plans. At times this was rather stressful to Thom, even though the principal usually simply "rubber-stamped" the plans (Thom, Interview, 4/27/2001). These teachers’ major concerns, however, focused on their ability to obtain support from colleagues and administrators. Elizabeth did not experience much isolation because she felt that her sixth grade team was very supportive (Elizabeth, Interview, 4/29/2001). Mark, on the other hand, experienced a lack of support, especially from his social studies colleagues, who never offered to help (Mark, Interview, 5/8/2001). Brian had similar concerns, as he was unsure

PAGE 120

109 how other teachers and administrators would be able to help him. As a result he decided to put himself to the test. I mean I tried an experiment where I stayed away [from everyone] for two weeks. I didn’t talk to any teachers, I didn’t see any administrators, I didn’t go to lunch. I’d stay in my classroom, and then I was done. I would go in in the morning, sign in, and then walk out. I was isolated. I can do it. And then it kind of scared me at that point. It was a little scary knowing that’s how it works. I was concerned whether I’d be able to get support if I needed guidance or whatever, shared my stories with [them], and asked them what they would do, things like that. It was a little ridiculous to see how isolated you could be. (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001) Thom was also concerned about a lack of support. He expected a “little more help being a first year teacher,” especially because he received no formal orientation prior to the start of the school year. However, as the year progressed, he received increasing support from his social studies colleagues (Thom, Interview, 4/27/2001). While classroom management was an ongoing concern for these teachers, it was of special concern to Mark as he tried to decide “how tough to be on the kids” (Mark, Interview, 5/18/2001). Only after he began “jumping on them” did his students seem to respond, which enabled him to get “more relaxed as the year went on” (Mark, Interview, 5/8/2001). Throughout the school year Mark spent a great deal of time trying to maintain discipline in his classroom. Although he seemed very strict at times, there were also times when he lost control and resorted to loudly calling out for the class to calm down. Mark spent a great deal of time sending students next door to another teacher’s classroom, where they had to fill out a Time Out Solution Plan. On one such occasion, a student whom he sent out of the room slammed the door so hard that the entire portable shook (Mark, Observation, 10/24/2000). However, Mark’s experience was in no way unique in comparison to the other three teachers in this study. Although Brian's and Thom’s classrooms maintained an

PAGE 121

110 almost family-like atmosphere, and whereas Brian usually acted stern and Thom more congenial, both had repeated interactions with their students in which they would lash out at them about their behavior, asking them, for example, why it was “so hard to be respectful” (Thom, Observation, 11/17/2000). However, throughout the year the most persistent classroom management problem in these teachers’ classrooms was their lack of intervention in allowing students to engage in private conversations or to sleep, sometimes for the duration of the entire class period. In yet another professional--as well as personal--concern, the teachers definitely suffered from a lack of time. Each of these teachers ended up forfeiting personal time to work on school related activities. Especially during the fall, Elizabeth spent a lot of time preparing lesson plans during the weekend. In addition to taking work home, Mark often spent a few extra hours after school to prepare lessons for the next day. Only after the birth of his first child did he decide that his personal time belonged to his family and “learn[ed] to leave things at the classroom door” (Mark, Interview, 5/8/2001, 5/15/2001). Thom faced a similar situation when, after about four months, his wife, who had until then always supported his career choice, began to express concern about his working too much on the weekend (Thom, Interview, 4/27/2001). Of the teachers in this study, Brian faced the most stressful personal concerns, in that he and his fiance moved to a new city where they simultaneously made the transition into full-time jobs. Because of Brian’s strong belief that he did not want to “just come up with a bunch of worksheets,” he experienced a lack of time as well. This lack of time became even more challenging once he and his fiance decided to get married and go on a honeymoon, which forced him to “stay up until 12 o’ clock each night planning”

PAGE 122

111 (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001). Ironically, he believed that the resulting social isolation in this new environment actually helped him to some degree, since he “would have had people around distracting [him] otherwise" (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001). Elizabeth argued that one does not go into teaching for the money, while Mark maintained that this was not an issue for him either. Thom never raised the issue, perhaps because his “home life [was] kind of steady,” and he had already lived in the area near his wife’s family for five years. For Brian, however, finances became a major personal concern, especially after his wedding. When he and his wife began to look into purchasing a house, they realized they did not have enough money for the down payment. As Brian explained, “And what about kids in a few years? I don’t know how we’d have enough to do everything. My car is going to die soon, and I couldn’t make a car payment right now” (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). And, to make matters worse, Brian also had to begin paying back his student loans, which amounted to nearly one fourth of his monthly salary (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). Support structures Since the state of Florida requires each local school district to develop a state-approved system for demonstration of Professional Education Competence, the teachers in this study were required to participate in a formal teacher induction program. They unanimously described their induction program as rather useless and redundant, especially after having completed the PROTEACH program. At each school, the mentor’s role was largely limited to a series of required observations, and providing and filling out the necessary paperwork. Mark was required to attend bi-monthly district-wide meetings with other beginning teachers. This made him feel better about his teaching, nonetheless, as

PAGE 123

112 discussions with other beginning teachers in what he referred to as the “chat room” made him realize that he was doing rather well by comparison (Mark, Interview, 5/8/2000). Brian resented his required weekly meetings because he could “tell the difference between those who had gone through some type of teacher program and those who hadn’t,” and he would rather have used this time to develop lesson plans (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). Thom also had to attend a few meetings during preplanning as well as two meetings during the school year. Elizabeth’s induction program required no regularly scheduled meetings. Of much greater importance than the formal induction program was the informal support network, which each teacher was able to develop to varying degrees. In Elizabeth’s case, the small sixth-grade team provided invaluable daily support. Mark, although he found very little support among his social studies colleagues and shied away from the teachers’ lounge because he was “tired of the griping," did receive considerable help from a teacher in a nearby portable, who turned out to be one of his former high school math teachers. This colleague became a valuable informal mentor to Mark (Mark, Interview, 5/8/2001). Unlike Mark, Brian and Thom both found significant informal support within their social studies departments. Brian indicated that he received a lot of support from three “really, really good social studies teachers,” and “actually meeting people that [he] knew, and then developing a relationship” (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001). One colleague proved especially helpful; he “was supposed to be the technology guy,” and, although he was "a Mac person in a school with mostly personal computers," he was able to “point [him] in a direction” (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001). Thom particularly credited his own social

PAGE 124

113 studies department with his staying in teaching. Meeting daily in a crowded office space in the back of one of the social studies teachers’ classrooms, his colleagues gave him an opportunity to “discuss ideas and events,” and allowed him to “just have someone to talk to, and get feedback [from]” (Thom, Interview, 4/27/2001). Often I arrived at Magnolia High School during lunchtime to find Thom and his colleagues in this office area. I noted their strong collegiality, which sometimes included griping but mostly a sense of camaraderie. “At our school we are, like, famous for getting along,” Thom stated (Thom, Interview, 4/27/2001). Technology support While experiencing various levels of formal and informal support in a general sense, the teachers in this study experienced numerous problems trying to obtain support specifically for the use of technology in their classroom. None of the schools offered any type of formal orientation or training in technology for the classroom. Any support they were actually able to obtain was the result of their own initiative and effort. Elizabeth remarked that, despite the lack of formal training, she did get support from some of her colleagues who showed her how to use the destination unit in her classroom. Although she requested the school’s computer support person, whose job entailed servicing the school’s 450 computers and maintaining its entire network, to repair her malfunctioning computers, he never did. She finally solved the problem by taking only those four computers that were working properly to her new classroom when she moved during the second semester (Elizabeth, Interview, 4/29/2001). Mark was adamant about not having received enough technology support. He found out on his own where the computer labs were located and how to sign up to use them. While the staff member in charge of the lab was willing to show him how to sign

PAGE 125

114 up, he showed no inclination to explain to Mark what was available in the lab for the teachers and students to use. Even by the end of the school year, Mark was still unsure about this staff member’s responsibilities, suggesting that the “technology fix-it man” spent more of “his time doing repair jobs than actually teaching things and showing teachers how to do things” (Mark, Interview, 5/8/2001). Brian likewise encountered a serious lack of support for using technology, and he laughingly commented that he “was the support” (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001). Only because of his own persistence did he manage to gain access to computers. Furthermore, once he discovered a practically unused lab with old computers, he soon began using the facility to meet with his students. He then quickly learned, whenever he encountered problems with a computer that he was unable to solve, to contact district technology support personnel, who usually would come out to the school within a week or two (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001). Thom also learned to find his own way to the computers he could use with his students. However, gaining access to the Mac lab in the library at his school was very competitive. On several occasions teachers signed up for the lab without actually using it, a source of great irritation to Thom. However, when the media-technology specialist recognized Thom’s interest in integrating technology into his teaching, she quickly became his ally, got his name on a list, and helped him get two new student computers for his classroom (Thom, Interview, 4/27/2001). In addition, even though Thom was also supposed to have access to a district technology representative, she proved very difficult to contact, which led Thom to do things on his own, something he said he had learned in PROTEACH (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2001).

PAGE 126

115 The teachers in this study stressed the need for a formal orientation about the technology that was available at their school and for opportunities for professional development. Elizabeth suggested that beginning teachers should receive a tour of the computer lab, be made familiar with the available hardware and software, and obtain computers that actually work (Elizabeth, Interview, 4/29/2001). Furthermore, Mark suggested that each school specifically designate a technology mentor for its beginning teachers (Mark, Interview, 5/8/2001). Brian simply said that new teachers need to be provided with training and professional development opportunities. Ironically, in his school district such opportunities were available only during the summer months and only to technology “contact people” in the schools. However, even as a technology contact person himself, Brian did not become aware of this opportunity until the end of the school year, saying that the district did “not very much broadcast that” (Brian, Interview, 5/10/2001). Echoing the same sentiment, Thom explained that even though the students at his school were required to go through a three-day program about how to use the computer lab and the library, this service was not extended to the teachers (Thom, Interview, 4/27/2001). Summary These beginning social studies teachers, who graduated from the PROTEACH program, considered themselves well prepared. They especially appreciated the experiences they gained during their practicums and internship and learning how to prepare lesson plans. Their major concerns focused on professional, rather than personal, issues, and dealt with how to be an effective social studies teacher. Because their formal teacher induction programs often seemed redundant and reminiscent of their

PAGE 127

116 PROTEACH experiences, these teachers actively sought to develop their own informal support network, especially among their social studies colleagues and/or team members. Furthermore, the teachers in this study were especially concerned about the absence of any specific orientation program at their school about what technology resources were available to them for use in the social studies classroom. As their schools appeared to lack an on-site technology support person, these teachers appeared to welcome a technology mentor, who could not only help them use the available technology resources in the social studies classroom but also provide them with new opportunities for professional development. Teaching History As stated in Chapter Two, research has shown that students have found social studies uninteresting and irrelevant. Research has also emphasized a more process-oriented approach to the teaching and learning of social studies and history that, according to the National Council for the Social Studies, is more meaningful, integrative, value-based, challenging and active. As preservice teachers in the PROTEACH program, the beginning social studies teachers in this study were strongly encouraged to lead their students in this direction. Assertion 3 Due to their own understandings of historical thinking and historical inquiry, these beginning social studies teachers often had difficulty engaging their students in historical inquiry, especially when using technology. Teacher understandings All four teachers believed that PROTEACH had prepared them adequately as subject area teachers, especially in the area of pedagogical content knowledge and historical inquiry. As liberal arts undergraduate majors, they indicated that “the fifth year

PAGE 128

117 kind of tied everything together and taught you how to teach what you had just learned” (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000), and “helped [you] to teach the subject” and “to get your ideas across” (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). Although they wished more attention had been devoted to other social studies subjects such as geography, these teachers all maintained that PROTEACH had provided them with a good introduction to historical thinking, perspective taking, and historical empathy. Although all agreed that historical thinking means being able to understand multiple perspectives within their own historical context, Elizabeth especially defined historical thinking as making history relevant to the present. Mark and Thom argued that historical thinking means “looking at history and seeing how people have thought about certain issues” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000), and getting students to “think about how different histories relate to each other” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). Brian especially connected historical thinking with multiple perspectives, explaining that history is “people from now looking back and . . . judging things that people did in the past” (Brian, Interview, 9/ 29/2000), whereas Thom argued that historical thinking involves trying “to get your students to think in that specific time frame” and “have them not apply today’s values to a specific time period, [which] is very hard to do” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). These teachers understood that perspective taking means “bringing in different points of view from different types of people” (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000) and showing students “how different groups of people within a society [may] have looked at an issue” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000) from different social, economic, political, ethnic, religious, or gender viewpoints. Mark noted that “there is no omniscient history writer

PAGE 129

118 that’s been watching everything” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). “In every occurrence,” he stated, “there [are] always at least two people there,” and when there are no multiple perspectives, “then it’s something that I would really have to doubt as being credible” (Mark, Interview, 9/29/2000). Although Mark and Brian tended to think of multiple perspectives in terms of a dualistic interpretation of history, Elizabeth and Thom appeared to believe that there can be more than two perspectives on the same event, which “don’t necessarily have to be conflicting” [Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Furthermore, Thom emphasized the importance of getting his students to understand that interpretation “has a lot to do with background,” and that “this is really hard to do” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). Although the teachers in this study defined historical empathy as understanding why people in history did what they did, references to “how people felt” were very much a part of their conceptual framework. Although Brian referred to historical empathy simply as “trying to get a sense of how people felt in history” at a particular time (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001), the other teachers presented a more nuanced understanding. According to Elizabeth, historical empathy is “not necessarily to sympathize but more to understand how things have shaped people, and how issues and events have shaped them” (Elizabeth, Interview. 9/19/2000). Mark likewise defined historical empathy as trying to get his students “to put themselves into somebody else’s shoes, for them to kind of get into history and almost imagine what it would be like to be there” (Mark, Interview, 1/13/2000). While he realized that to do so he would have “to spark some creativity” in his students, he also posited that “you don’t want to do too much of that and get them away from the content” (Mark, Interview, 1/13/2000). Similarly, Thom argued

PAGE 130

119 that “if you have your students sympathize . . . you are teaching them [only] one perspective” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2000). According to Thom, students can and must learn to empathize so that “they can kind of understand “how [people] would have felt and why [things] happened” and come “close to feeling without actually having felt the emotion or the issue” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Interestingly, having almost completed his first year of teaching, Thom continued to struggle with the dilemma that sometimes there are issues with which “you want to have the students sympathize” and to be able to say, for example, that “the Holocaust was bad” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). In addition, he defended the importance of being able to “go into the classroom thinking that [the students] actually have a blank slate,” and he believed that they needed to be specifically told that historical empathy is “one of the objectives of [a particular] activity and explain what it is [because] they just don’t know” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). These teachers indicated that it was important to them to engage their students in historical inquiry, for students to try to “take on a perspective other than their own” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2001), and for them to know “about different people and not necessarily just the rulers” (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000). While Mark argued that “a lot of times [students] just think that what is in the history books is it, just a fact sitting there” (Mark, Interview, 9/29/2000), Thom stated that often it is even hard “just [to get them] to read a document” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Furthermore, Thom added that his students “need to learn [empathy] before they can move on to something else” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000), which was echoed by Mark as well: I think it’s important that they’re not [only] there to learn the content and understand things but [also] to realize that in their everyday situations they need to

PAGE 131

120 empathize with people. And if I can get them to try to understand what it was like to be in the French and Indian War, maybe that will help them down the road somewhere to realize what it would be like to be someone else in a conflict, and maybe stop them from perhaps doing something that they shouldn’t be doing to someone else. So I try to look at it as something teaching both content and very practical in their everyday life. (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000) Guiding student inquiry In their interviews the teachers suggested that they focused much of their teaching on historical inquiry, understanding multiple, alternative historical perspectives, and overcoming intolerance through such topics as the role of the church in the Middle Ages, the Boston Massacre, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and especially the more recent history of World War I, World War II, and the Holocaust. My classroom observations throughout the school year indicated that these teachers were indeed committed to engaging their students in historical inquiry. However, the level of success these teachers achieved with historical inquiry activities varied greatly from situation to situation. Whereas on some occasions their learning activities involved explicit attention to perspective taking or historical empathy through the use of primary documents, on other occasions the focus of the activities was unclear or lacking in substance. For example, early on in their courses Mark, Brian, and Thom decided to introduce their students to the idea of multiple perspectives. As Brian explained: What I originally wanted to do was kind of at the beginning of the course trying, walking the students through some of those ideas. I spent a day on the block, maybe a day and one half, on what is history. I did the Boston Massacre, perspective taking where they [first] look at the British version of what happened, and then they look at the colonist version. (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000) Although Brian taught World History, he decided that interpretation is such an important aspect of history that a unit on the Boston Massacre was well justified to get the idea of multiple perspectives across to his students. In their American History courses

PAGE 132

121 Mark and Thom likewise decided early on to present a unit on multiple perspectives, based respectively on the Boston Massacre (see Foster & Yeager, 1999) and the Battle of Lexington (see Scheurman, 1998). These three teachers all first encountered the particular unit they chose to teach in the PROTEACH program, and they decided to adapt it to their own classroom setting. Each unit was well planned and specifically focused on the objectives their students were expected to attain, including analyzing multiple sources and perspectives, and evaluating their reliability and bias. Mark and Thom both used graphic organizers and guiding questions to help groups of students evaluate the credibility of the sources they read. In a review of the activity, Mark explicitly reminded his students of the documents they had read “so [they could] understand that nothing in history is set in cement, [and that] everything we get in history is handed down, and that’s part of the problem” (Mark, Observation, 10/3/2000). Incidentally, administrative support for the inclusion of multiple perspectives became evident on one occasion when Thom’s principal entered his classroom in the middle of a lesson to remind Thom that his students should be reading and analyzing primary documents as practice for the upcoming state achievement test (Thom, Observation, 1/19/2001). In a successful propaganda activity, Elizabeth presented seven groups with five American World War I posters and two German leaflets that were dropped among the American troops in France. She had printed out each of the seven primary documents in color and presented them separately to each group in a protective plastic cover. While the documents she selected represented a dual American-German perspective on World War I, Elizabeth's specific focus on propaganda helped her students nonetheless to do some of

PAGE 133

122 their own thinking. In addition to telling students to specifically examine the use of color in the posters, she used written guiding questions to help them put together a presentation in which they would be required to describe what their poster looked like, what struck them about it, what they thought its message was, how it would be considered propaganda, and how it would have been effective during the war. Because of this detailed guidance, her students were able to engage the source, as was evident from one group’s presentation of a popular U.S. recruiting poster: A man [Uncle Sam] is pointing at you. He looks very patriotic. We are thinking he’s asking you to join the army. We think it’s propaganda because he’s trying to get you to join the army. We think it’s effective for World War I because he looks very patriotic. (Elizabeth, Observation, May 1) Additionally, during the fall semester, Mark often successfully focused his students’ attention on the American presidential election. As a political science major, he used the election process to help his students understand multiple perspectives by specifically discussing the views of each of the three main candidates on a variety of issues such as taxes, medical prescriptions, social security, education and national energy needs (Mark, Observation, 11/3/2000). When the students’ task was unclear or involved little effort on their part, as I observed on several occasions, the activity usually failed to engage them. For example, on one occasion, Elizabeth used a long printout from the Internet about the cause and spread of the Black Death and the beliefs that surrounded this terrifying epidemic. The handout contained many excellent medieval images that might well have captured her students’ attention. However, because she was focused so much on getting through the many pages of fine print, most of her students soon lost interest and stopped paying attention (Elizabeth, Observation, 2/8/2001). On the other hand, on those occasions when

PAGE 134

123 the teachers provided their students with an active and detailed task such as completing guiding questions to analyze a primary document, as Thom did with the song The Battle of New Orleans (Thom, Observation, 8/25/2000), and with diary entries and letters written by Confederate soldiers (Thom, Observation, 10/17/2000), the students became much more engaged. When the students were organized into groups to conduct their own historical inquiry, the results were often mixed. On one such occasion, Mark divided his students into four large groups, of six to seven students each, to teach a section from the chapter in the textbook to their classmates. Even though he provided his students with specific instructions to include key terms, important people, key concepts/ideas, and important events in the handouts they were required to use in their presentation, only a few of the students did the work while most spent their time socializing. In this case, the task they had to complete was not sufficiently meaningful to involve each student. In another example, for an activity on the California Gold Rush Thom divided his students in groups to help them understand the various perspectives of wealthy Pennsylvania lawyers, poor laborers from New York City, freed black New Englanders, wealthy European risk-takers, and merchants from Boston. Each group of students was given one of five budget scenarios, after which the group members had to choose one of three routes to travel to California. The students became animated and rather excited about the activity; however, the instructions for purchasing mining tools and land were incomplete. The students quickly became confused about how they would know if they had struck gold, and off-task behavior became common. Eventually, Thom bribed the

PAGE 135

124 students with candy as an incentive to complete the activity (Thom, Observation, 9/15/2000). Early on in her World Cultures course, Elizabeth engaged her students in a virtual tour of Khufu’s pyramid, during which they were required to produce a drawing of its interior layout. However, while the students were eager to get on the computer, the novelty of their task, which according to some was “cool” because they had never seen the inside of a pyramid before (Charlotte, Els, Eric, and Juli, Interview, 5/9/2001), seemed to quickly wear off, and they began to hurry through the web site to come up with the right answers (Elizabeth, Observation, 9/18/2000). In one of his attempts to have his high school students do their own research and present their findings on an African country, Brian likewise found that, even when he gave explicit instructions on the unit’s objectives, many of his students were unable to work in groups, and either the group never completed its task or did so in a manner that lacked in-depth analysis. In a similar situation, two students in Thom’s American History course had to make a research presentation on an individual who had made a significant impact during World War II. When Thom asked these two students to explain the significance of Anne Frank’s life after they had finished their presentation, they simply said, “Otto Frank first did not want to publish (her diary) but he changed his mind.” Thom chose not to expand on this comment but instead quickly moved on to the next presentation. Another factor that on several occasions had a significant impact on student learning was the teacher’s lack of content knowledge. For example, in one class, Elizabeth asked her students if they could think of alternate routes the early explorers

PAGE 136

125 might have been able to take to Asia. As the question clearly began to engage her students, one of them suggested traveling up the Nile and then crossing the land to the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean. Not knowing how to respond to this suggestion, she simply moved on, and thus lost an opportunity for her students to grapple with the question (Elizabeth, Observation, 2/28/2001). On other occasions, the lesson materials used by the teachers constituted a source of misguidance. Elizabeth, for example, in attempting to engage her students, occasionally used worksheets that presented a very traditional Eurocentric perspective. For example: Before meeting Pizarro, though, a Spanish priest tried to tell Atahualpa about Christianity. Atahualpa did not want to hear about other gods or religions, because he was a child of a very powerful god, the Sun. Then the priest showed a Bible to Atahualpa. Atahualpa had never seen a book before. (Remember, the Incas had no way to write things down. They only used the quipus.) He looked at the book, could not understand it, and threw it on the ground. When Atahualpa showed such disrespect for the Spanish Empire and for Christianity, Pizarro ordered his men to attack Atahualpa's guards and capture Atahualpa. (Elizabeth, Observation, 02/28/2001) While this particular worksheet asked the students to answer questions about how the Incas perceived the Spaniards and why they did so, as well as how the Spaniards perceived the Incas, the reading selection was one-sided and lacked an authentic Inca perspective. Using a similar Eurocentric source, Mark showed his students an old video about a teenage girl who traveled back in time to the Alamo. While at the Alamo she witnessed the decision by Colonel William Travis and others to either remain at or flee from the arsenal in the face of Santa Ana’s imminent attack. While the video caught the students' interest, it failed to present any Mexican perspective, and Mark made no attempt to point this out to his students (Mark, Observation, 3/22/2001).

PAGE 137

126 Mark attempted to engage his students in a historical empathy activity by reenacting the Underground Railroad, an idea he had adapted from Wayne Hickman’s article “Freedom Train: Building an Underground Railroad” in the September 1999 issue of Middle Level Learning. After taking his students outside to the tennis courts, located at the far back of the school campus, he divided them into runaway slaves, slave catchers, and abolitionists. The runaway slaves’ assignment was to “escape” to the front of the school. However, not knowing whether their classmates, who were posted by Mark in different hiding places between the back and the front of the campus, were slave catchers or abolitionists, the students found that escaping was very difficult, and many began to cheat by running away even after they had been captured by slave catchers. After returning to the classroom, Mark then asked them to think about how runaway slaves might have known whom to trust, and whether escaping might have been easier alone or in a group. Next, he concluded the activity by stating that “[he knew they] were not going to feel anywhere near what the runaway slaves felt but [hoped they] got some idea of what it might have been like” (Mark, Observation, 5/15/2001). Student computer use The survey showed that the students in this study liked using computers ( M 4.5, SD 78; see Appendix D, Table D-2) and believed that they made learning in general ( M 4.15, SD 0.96; see Appendix D, Table D-2), and social studies in particular, more interesting ( M 3.82, SD 1.12; see Appendix D, Table D-2). In addition, the survey results revealed a moderately strong positive correlation between the students’ perception that computers make learning in general and social studies in particular more interesting ( r 53486, see Appendix D, Table D-5). In their interviews, the students in this study nearly unanimously heralded the Internet as an easy, nearly magical, source to quickly

PAGE 138

127 get any kind of information they were looking for, especially in comparison to reading from “boring books.” In addition, several students liked being able to use computers to word process their assignments, especially when they had “poor penmanship” (Damian, Interview, 12/12/2000) or “sloppy handwriting” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). In a typical response, Els said that computers “are, like, the best thing ever because if you have a project or something, and you don’t really have the books for that, you go on the computer and the Internet, and there it is all for you. It’s really neat, and you can type up reports too” (Interview, Els, 5/9/2001). The students liked the “easy, easy access to just about anything you want (Marlon, Interview, 5/1/2001) because if “it takes too long what you’re looking for in the book all you got to do is type in what you’re looking for and it brings it up” (Heather, Interview, 5/1/2001). Ranson simply asserted that computers are “faster, . . . more convenient, [and] a lot less messier when you do projects and stuff” (Ranson, 5/22/2001). Likewise, Tamara said, “It’s a faster way to get your information, rather than going through books” (Tamara, Interview, 5/22/2001). This nearly blind faith in the Internet even appeared to extend to other sources of information as well, as explained by Eric, a sixth grade student. . . . and there’s the Internet. So, like, if I can’t look it up in my textbook, you can always look something up, you can have Encarta or something, like, let’s say your social studies book and you don’t know what . . . you can just look it up in Encarta and there’s the definition. (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001) While none of the middle school students questioned the validity of the information they retrieved from the computer, some of the high school students appeared to have a more balanced assessment. Santos remarked, “It’s tough sometimes because some of the web sites aren’t appropriate, and sometimes it’s hard to get information” (Santos,

PAGE 139

128 Interview, 5/22/2001). Jahan even argued that computers sometimes “cheat you out of some things that life really has to offer,” for example, when one takes a virtual tour of Mount Kilimanjaro rather than visiting the real site. Tamika posited that computers “make a person really lazy, extremely lazy” because it’s “so easy to copy and paste images” from the Internet and elsewhere into a PowerPoint presentation, rather than “make a poster with glitter and stuff” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2000). The students in this study also indicated in their survey that most of their social studies teachers in the past did not use computers a lot ( M 2.44, SD 1.09; see Appendix D, Table D-2), but that this year their social studies teacher did like using them ( M 3.84, SD 1.14; see Appendix D, Table D-2). The ratings of their teacher’s enjoyment of using computers ranged from a low score of 3.28 ( SD 1.06; see Appendix D, Table D-2) for Elizabeth to a high score of 4.46 ( SD 086; see Appendix D, Table D-2) for Thom. A comparison of the responses showed a statistically significant difference among the seven courses ( F (6,145) 3.79, p 0011539; see Appendix D, Table D-3), in that the students in Thom’s two American History courses rated his enjoyment of computers higher than the students in the other courses (See Appendix D, Table D-4, Item 18). In the interview, Elizabeth’s sixth grade students could not remember ever using computers at school for social studies during their fifth grade year. Interestingly, one group of Mark’s eighth grade students could not remember using computers during the previous year, whereas his other group recalled using them a lot. Referring to specific teachers, the first group indicated that its social studies classes last year were boring, “sitting there and listen[ing] to . . . long lectures” (Marlon, Interview, 5/1/2001) with the

PAGE 140

129 teacher “[standing] up there, and [talking] and [trying] to be funny” [Maxine, Interview, 5/1/2001). The second group, on the other hand, “would always go to the computer lab” (Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001), and “used to do a lot of research where you go on web sites” (Jerome, Interview. 5/5/2001) looking for information “for [an] African country project and [looking] on, like, Encarta and different web sites, . . . even [looking] in National Geographic” (Darren, Interview, 5/5/2001). With the exception of Tanya, none of Brian’s sophomores could recall using computers in his or her social studies classes in the past (Tanya, Interview, 12/8/2000). Neither could any of Thom’s sophomores, except perhaps with “those floppy disks and, like, Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego?” (Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001). Affirming that “this is the first social studies class I’ve had computers incorporated,” none of Thom’s juniors could recall ever using computers in his or her previous social studies classes other than “to type our reports” (Amber, Interview, 12/12/2000). The students I interviewed strongly argued that computers “are a little bit more interactive” (Damian, Interview, 12/12/2000), “hands-on,” and “get you into it because it’s more fun” (Amber, Interview, 12/12/2000). For example, “if you can reenact a battle site, it’s a lot more fun” (Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001). Remarkably, many middle and high school students presented a rather balanced assessment of using computers in social studies. According to Eric, one of Elizabeth’s students, “it depends on what you’re looking at, sometimes it’ll be just like a textbook, and sometimes it’ll be different, . . . sometimes computers can be boring too . . . when you just read, read, read and you’re not looking at anything in particular” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). Tamara argued that the Internet is “more entertaining instead of constantly looking at words on a page” (Tamara, Interview, 5/22/2001), and Keandra

PAGE 141

130 stated that “it’s more interesting when you can see pictures and stuff like that . . . instead of all that reading” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). For some students it was simply the teacher who really made the difference. For example, Charlotte argued that computers did not make learning social studies more interesting “because Ms. Ireland is like a computer. It’s like she’s been there, like she’s been living for thousands of years, she’s been there in the past, she is, like, an expert on everything” (Charlotte, Interview, 5/9/2001). Similarly, Shamika, one of Brian’s students, argued that World History was a good class because “Mr. Benvenuto is a really nice teacher [and] computers don’t have too much to do with [that]” (Shamika, Interview, 12/8/2000). For others, social studies was either simply “interesting regardless” (Jerome, Interview, 5/5/2001) or a matter of “if something is boring a computer is not going to make it seem more interesting” (Interview, Darren, 5/5/2001). Some students in this study also argued that computers allowed them to work at their own speed “because a lot of people read really slow” (Els, Interview, 5/9/2001), and “some people go faster and don’t stay on the same page like some of the people” (Kaylen, Interview, 5/22/2001). Furthermore, one of Elizabeth’s sixth grade students remarked that computers make a class more interesting because “you [can] read, like, five people’s perspectives” (Els, Interview, 5/9/2001), whereas one of Thom’s sophomores likewise appreciated the Internet because “you can see, like, the different views of different people” (Santos, 5/22/2001). Learning with computers The students in this study agreed without any hesitation that they could use computers to learn about history. With an occasional reference to using software applications such as Encarta, they nearly unanimously mentioned the Internet as their

PAGE 142

131 first choice. According to Eric, a sixth grade student, “You can find just about anything on the Internet, . . . like how the Civil War started, how WW I and WW II started, how the stuff ended, what happened” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). Mark’s student, Marlon, said he liked “to look up for World History on the computer, and . . . go up on the Internet, and . . . type in things [that] will take you directly to what you’re looking for” (Marlon, Interview, 5/9/2001). Talyah bluntly stated, “Yahoo is my friend. All you have to do is type in what you want and it lists everything for you.” She even argued that, “pretty soon we’ll probably just be learning from the Internet (Talyah, Interview, 5/9/2001). This sentiment was shared by some of Thom’s students as well, who argued that “computers are going to replace people, jobs, . . . televisions and video recorders” (Jahan, Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2000). Brian’s sophomores wholeheartedly agreed that “you can get pictures and stuff [on the Internet], and the fact that you’re scrolling along and doing all that, that’s more exciting than all those words in the book” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). Ranson especially liked it when Thom showed them digital maps of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia because “you can see the battle action happen,” and “doing less out of the book, that’s going to make World History a lot better [since] no one really likes reading books” (Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001). Tim, one of Thom’s juniors, argued that “computers are probably the best resource there is to find out information about anything that’s ever happened” (Tim, Interview, 5/12/2000). The students strongly believed that using the Internet made learning history more “hands-on” (Tamara, Interview, 5/22/2001) and “more interesting,” and made it “stay with people that participated” (James, Interview, 12/12/2000).

PAGE 143

132 The survey indicated that students in this study also believed they could use the Internet to learn about events from multiple perspectives ( M 4.07, SD 0.87; see Appendix D, Table D-2). Charlotte, one of Elizabeth’s sixth grade students, recognized, for example, that “people who make the web sites have, like, different perspectives about what happened, and you can read them and find out which one, like, makes sense to you” (Charlotte, Interview, 5/9/2001). Els, another one of her students, even argued: Computers make class interesting because they have different perspectives of different people of how they saw history, so we don’t only read one person’s perspective of that history, you read, like, five people’s perspectives and how, like, and why they have that perspective, you know. (Els, Interview, 5/9/2001) According to the survey, the students also believed that they did not get to spend enough time on computers, either at school ( M 2.38, SD 1.12; see Appendix D, Table D-2) or in their social studies classes ( M 2.51, SD 1.09; see Appendix D, Table D-2). Interestingly, after having argued previously that Elizabeth was so good they did not need to use computers, Elizabeth’s students later in the interview regretted that they only got to use them “once every couple of months” (Juli, Interview, 5/9/2001). After I reminded them of their earlier comments, they stated that it “would be cool” if they were “able to choose when to use the computers on certain things,” although using “computers, like, every single day would be a bit much,” and “get boring” too (Charlotte, Els, Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). Allen did not “think that [he] got to spend enough time on computersthey get used in our class a lot but we don’t usually spend time on them. It’s basically [Mark] using them to help teach us” (Allen, Interview, 5/1/2001). Brian’s students also lamented that they did not get to spend enough time in the computer lab, although they understood why he had decided earlier to no longer take them because

PAGE 144

133 “some people in our class . . . didn’t want to work, they’d just talk and be loud and stuff, and play around” (Dinetta, Tanya, Interview, 512/8/2000). Thom’s students were adamant about having plenty of access to computers. They liked the fact that he took them to the computer lab on several occasions, and appreciated him even more when he would “let them go to the library [to use the computers] whenever [they] want[ed] to finish a [history] project” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2000; Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001). Furthermore, Thom’s juniors also liked going to the computer lab “to do various things like Oregon Trail and [SimCity],” even though they admitted it was “more fun than education” (Damian, Interview, 12/12/2000). Finally, the student survey indicated a somewhat positive response to whether they used computers a lot outside of school to complete assignments ( M 3.48, SD 1.26; see Appendix D, D-2), but a rather neutral response for completing social studies assignments ( M 2.75, SD 1.33; see Appendix D, Table D-2). In addition, in their interviews, the students in this study indicated that beyond the regular school day they mostly used computers to word process assignments or look up information on the Internet for school projects. To do so, they either used a computer at home, the public library, the school library, or a friend or relative’s house. A few students commented, however, that occasionally when the teacher “said something that caught my eye, I’ll go home to research it further” (Maxine, Interview, 5/1/2201), or sometimes “just to challenge [him or her] with, like, trivia questions or whatever” (Talyah, 5/5/2001). On the other hand, occasionally a student also used the Internet for the exact opposite reason. Ranson, for example, read the transcripts of a

PAGE 145

134 movie to write a report because he had “slept through [it] when [they] were watching it in class” (Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001). Student understandings Another assessment of the effectiveness with which the teachers in this study engaged their students in historical thinking and historical inquiry may be provided by the student interviews, which took place near the end of each course. The students’ understanding of historical thinking had remained rather unclear up to this point. Nearly all of the middle school students described the concept in broad, general terms such as “thinking about people that lived in the past and how they survived in the past without technology and stuff like that and how it all came together and, like, made this world today” (Els, Interview, 5/9/2001), or “thinking about history, thinking about the past and what happened and what will happen” (Jerome, Interview, 5/5/201). Interestingly, most of the high school students simply had no idea about these concepts, although Ranson did describe it as “thinking why this person did that, and what he did, the effects it had on people” (Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001). Elizabeth’s sixth grade students were able to articulate the concept of multiple perspectives quite well. Charlotte, for example, in recalling the three estates activity during the unit on the French Revolution, described multiple perspectives as “our different views of history or our different ideas” (Charlotte, Interview, 5/9/2001). On the other hand, despite several specific activities throughout the year, nearly half of Mark’s eighth grade students were unable to define the idea of multiple perspectives. While some of his students referred to it as “both sides of the story or other sides,” others hypothesized that “there’s things in the government that we don’t even know today” (Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2002), or that if George Washington “would have been caught

PAGE 146

135 slap drunk . . . that wouldn’t be in the history books because he’s a hero” (Darren, Interview, 5/5/2002). Brian’s sophomores generally understood that “people are always going to look at things differently” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000), and that “anybody has their side of the story” (Shamika, Interview, 12/8/2000). And while Thom’s juniors generally echoed a “two sides” perspective, Tamika opined that “you just can’t have a closed mind,” and that “people do write many different versions but no one really knows what happened” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2000). Historical empathy remained an elusive concept for most students. Eric, a sixth grade student, simply asked whether he could “look it up in the dictionary” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001), while Allen, one of Mark’s eighth grade students, referred to empathy as “what people were feeling.” Interestingly, one of Mark’s interview groups applied the definition of empathy from a peer counseling program they had completed the previous year to historical empathy, which to them meant “imagin[ing] what it would be like” or “put[ting] yourself in the place of another person, like how [George Washington] was feeling” (Shay and Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001). Most of Brian and Thom’s high school students simply shrugged their shoulders; only two of the sixteen interviewed students had any notion of historical empathy as maybe a “feeling towards something” (Tamika and Jahan, Interview, 12/12/2000). Summary These beginning social studies teachers who graduated from the PROTEACH program strongly believed it is important to engage students in historical inquiry. As a result, they regularly sought to engage their students in historical thinking, understanding multiple perspectives, and learning to empathize with people in the past. The learning activities they designed to promote historical inquiry were most effective when they were

PAGE 147

136 thoughtfully facilitated by the teacher and included specific, detailed tasks that each student had to complete. When the requirements for the students were too broad and lacking in detail, the students became disengaged and lost interest. Group activities often allowed students to become uninvolved, either because they lacked the necessary skills to engage in cooperative learning or because the group was simply too large. Furthermore, the selection of biased lesson materials and, at times, a lack of teacher content knowledge or competitive learning activities provided additional barriers to student learning. In contrast to their limited past experiences with technology in social studies, and because of their avowed aversion to reading from the textbook, the students in this study liked using computers and believed they made studying history more interesting because of their hands-on nature. Unfortunately, they also appeared to regard the Internet as a deus ex machina that could easily meet all their needs for any type of information. However, most appeared to realize that using computers has its limitations, that sometimes the Internet could stifle their motivation, and that the teacher ultimately made the difference in terms of their interest and engagement in the material. Finally, the students in this study clearly indicated they liked using computers often to learn about history because it gave them a sense of control over their own learning. They especially perceived the Internet as an exciting way to learn about history because, as they searched for information and tried to make sense out of the multiple sources they themselves found, they actually got to do history. However, while most middle and high school students in this study understood that there are multiple perspectives on historical events, they generally had great difficulty grasping the concepts of historical thinking and historical empathy.

PAGE 148

137 Technology And The Social Studies Recent advances in technology and access to computers and the Internet have created many new opportunities for social studies teachers to use computers in their classroom. As the access to new technology in the classroom continues to improve, social studies teachers and their students will have ever greater access to enormous amounts of information and authentic sources, especially through the Internet, that allow them to do history. The level of integration of computers in the classrooms of the teachers in this study, however, was affected by various positive as well as negative factors. Assertion 4 The experiences these beginning social studies teachers had in their teacher preparation program profoundly impacted their efforts to integrate technology into their teaching of historical inquiry as they were innovators with pedagogical content knowledge. Integrating technology Significantly, all four teachers in this study predominantly described technology in terms of enhancing or supplementing student learning and the curriculum. Only Mark argued specifically that technology is a matter of basic skills, in that “everywhere you go you are going to have technology” and that knowing how to use computers is “necessary for them to go into the workforce and be marketable, and able to get a job” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). Furthermore, while these teachers used computers for their own administrative tasks, such as recording their students’ grades, and even considered the possibility of posting them on the Internet for the parents to look at (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000), their primary focus was on the curricular and instructional use of computers. The technology course they took proved to be an especially formative experience, as they defined the integration of technology into their curriculum in terms of some of the

PAGE 149

138 major activities that were part of the course such as PowerPoint presentations, webquests, and Internet research. These teachers unanimously agreed that the major strength of the course was that it provided them with the basic tools they needed to make a PowerPoint presentation, create a web page, develop a webquest, research the Internet, and evaluate web sites. In fact, Brian remarked that he “only took one class, and [now] I’m a big tech guy here [at school], imagine that” (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). According to Brian, “some people [in PROTEACH] just didn’t want to learn anything new,” but the course was especially helpful “if you took advantage of the learning opportunities it offered.” In addition, he pointed out that he specifically sought out a supervising teacher who let him “use a little bit of technology” (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). Thom also pointed out that he was “by far the technology representative,” that his colleagues wanted him “to show them how to use PowerPoint,” and that the course had in fact taught him how “to do things on [his] own” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Echoing Brian’s sentiment, Thom also suggested that having had “technology as part of the practicum[s] or internship would [have been] really helpful because of some of the problems I am experiencing now” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). Two major concerns about the course, however, focused on its lack of pedagogy on how to teach with computers and the feasibility of telecollaboration. Referring to pedagogical content knowledge, Brian argued that the course didn’t “really [teach] how to incorporate social studies with technology” (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001), whereas Thom questioned “the control factor of being in a lab with around 25 kids” (Thom, Interview, 10/13/2000). He maintained that what he labeled as “the social side” or “the issue of how [computers] fit into the school as far as the presentation, the research, and

PAGE 150

139 things of that nature” was neglected (Thom, Interview 5/22/2001). And while the teachers in this study generally appreciated the concept of telecollaboration, they expressed several reservations. Thom felt that telecollaboration was “a good idea” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000) but “unattainable” because “you’d really have to have the resources to do that” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). Elizabeth argued that telecollaboration was unrealistic during her first year, but that she might consider it “maybe five years down the line” (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2001). Likewise, Brian “[didn’t] think it would work because, [he didn’t] like relying on someone else for a project,” and that having to do so “just [made him] nervous” (Brian, Interview, 2/2/2001). At the beginning of the academic year, these teachers all emphasized the importance of integrating technology into their curriculum, whether it be by using computers to prepare their own lesson plans or developing activities for the students themselves on the computers. The extent to which and manner in which they did so, however, differed dramatically. For example, while all four teachers used the Internet to research ideas for lesson plans, throughout the entire academic year Elizabeth did so predominantly to obtain background information. Only on two occasions she directly engaged her students on the computer with a virtual tour. The first time she required her students to explore Khufu’s pyramid to produce a drawing of its interior layout (Elizabeth, 9/18/2000), while the second time they visited the ruins of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa to complete a worksheet with questions (Elizabeth, Observation, 10/18/2000). Mark and Thom became avid users of PowerPoint lectures, yet they also required their students to create their own PowerPoint presentations so they could “show how they [had] learned” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). Furthermore, Mark developed a webquest

PAGE 151

140 for his students; however, he was unable to use it. Thom likewise experienced a failed attempt to use a webquest but was able to use modified versions of it on later occasions. While Thom was the only teacher to use popular software programs such as Oregon Trail and SimCity, he decided early on that “after a while . . . the kids just kind of don’t look at it as trying to learn something, they’re just playing” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Although Brian was never able to use PowerPoint in his own classroom to give a lecture, he took his students to the computer lab on several occasions to use paint software, complete a webquest, or create their own PowerPoint presentations. Brian especially asserted that technology provides students with an opportunity to independently create their own projects. He envisioned his students creating their own maps, producing PowerPoint presentations, and completing webquests, as well as learning how to search the web intelligently (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). According to the teachers in this study, technology excites children and “lures them into learning” because “they think of computers more as being a game than work” (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000) due to its hands-on nature. According to Brian, We live in a media-centered age, a lot of times you can’t compete with MTV but in this way you somehow have a little bit of a fighting chance because students really light up when they use technology, they just get interested. (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000) And, according to Mark, technology also “forces [students] to do a presentation in a different format, like PowerPoint, instead of getting a poster board, cutting out pictures, and printing up stuff" (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). These teachers specifically recognized the Internet as a source of access to an enormous amount of information. They argued that technology “adds to the class,” “provides a change of pace,” and that, “when [the students] see an ancient ruin on the

PAGE 152

141 computer, that’s so interesting . . . [they] want to know [about] that” (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2000). Furthermore, as Mark indicated, “It would be difficult to have a room full of books with all these different historical resources” (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). These teachers’ frustrations with using technology focused on problems related to access, how to manage different levels of computer literacy among their students, and how to maintain classroom discipline when using computers. Elizabeth said that she had “only six [functional] computers” in her own classroom at the beginning of the school year, and she lamented the fact that “it’s hard to keep everyone on track and kind of on an even speed” because “with technology it’s hard only being one person to monitor what everyone is doing” and that with “thirty kids . . . if I wanted to do a kind of webquest . . . I would have to arrange where there were other activities” (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000, 5/29/2001). Despite the fact that he often took his students to the computer lab where the computers were “so old . . . that it almost wasn’t worth doing” (Brian, Interview, 3/22001), Brian shared Elizabeth’s concern that using the lab forced him to “create at least two assignments that go along with technology; one . . . in case someday something happens, you can’t go to the lab; the other one . . . just in case they get done early” (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). Likewise, Mark referred to logistics as a significant “negative” of using computers because he had to pick up and return the school’s only projector each day to be able to use his own personal laptop, without which he was “really not sure if [he’d] be able to use [technology] or not” in the classroom (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000). Similarly, Brian resorted to bringing his own desktop computer to school for his personal use in the classroom (Brian, Observation, 9/29/2000). Like

PAGE 153

142 Mark, Thom brought his own laptop to school to give his PowerPoint presentations; this seemed more convenient to him because his school only had two laptops for use by the entire faculty. Like Elizabeth, Thom had his own teacher computer, but he did not have any student computers during the fall term. This especially frustrated him because he “knew how to . . . teach multiple perspectives and empathy but [did] not [have] the resources to do it” (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000). Therefore, partially because of their experiences in the PROTEACH program, these beginning social studies teachers unanimously believed, although to different degrees, that is was important to integrate technology into their history curriculum. The three most common ways they regularly tried to use computers in their classroom were to create PowerPoint presentations, complete webquests, and conduct research on the Internet. Teaching historical inquiry with computers At the beginning of the school year, the teachers in this study indicated they planned to use technology to teach their students about historical thinking, multiple perspectives, and historical empathy. They definitely planned to use the Internet to locate primary documents to introduce the concept of multiple perspectives. Primarily, they focused on using the Internet for lesson planning purposes to locate written as well as visual information they themselves could present to their students. However, Mark and Thom expressed the hope of completing a webquest with their students, whereas Brian tried to think of a way to perhaps use PowerPoint to organize a debate between different perspectives. In addition, having discovered that his school had a videoconferencing center, Brian also thought that he might perhaps be able to use that facility “to get someone from one of the death camps” to speak to his students (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000).

PAGE 154

143 These beginning social studies teachers’ responses to whether it was possible to engage their students in historical thinking, and whether they could use technology to do so, were very mixed. Elizabeth thought that, “yes and no,” her sixth-grade students could “start thinking about it” and that technology “could help [her] to find primary resources” [Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000, 5/29/2001). Mark thought that his students’ level of maturity was an issue and that “even just a few more years of experiences [would] help them a lot with historical thinking.” He thought that his higher ability, but not his lower ability, students would be able to engage in historical thinking, and that using computers to do this “with the weaker students” might actually take them away from the content” (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000, 5/15/2001). Brian argued that historical thinking “is possible with some of [his sophomores], not with all but with some.” He also believed that some of his students already knew how to think historically. His approach to the teaching of historical thinking was one of continuous reinforcement by “mentioning it a lot of times” (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). Thom was ambivalent about being able to teach historical thinking. While he believed that his students could learn to think historically through a webquest, or perhaps a Holocaust CD-ROM the state had provided to local schools, he argued that the “majority of his students just don’t care.” While he “didn’t label it as historical thinking,” he did a “couple of activities” but did “not really use technology because it was so hard to get into the computer lab” (Thom, Interview, 9/27/2000, 5/22/2001). All teachers thought that it was possible and important to teach their students about multiple perspectives (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000, 5/29/2001). As Mark argued, “Even if they remembered nothing about American history they should understand that

PAGE 155

144 different people see different things,” and that “technology [would] help [him] to bring some of the primary sources to them that show those differences” (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000). Brian thought that technology “ would . . . enhance” his teaching, and that his students could perhaps take a virtual tour of the U.S. Holocaust Museum to get a Jewish perspective (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). Mark also thought that perhaps he could divide his class into two groups and attempt to organize a chat between them from two separate computer labs (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000). Thom suggested using a webquest to present multiple perspectives on a particular issue to counter what he perceived to be the prevalent bigotry among his students. On several occasions he intimated that he thought it was important to address these issues and discuss them directly with his students: They tend to make fun of ethnic groups, sexual orientation, and you just have to talk to them about it. And I think that’s the problem. A lot of teachers just don’t talk about it, they just stay away from the issue altogether. And, like, I’ll hear comments in class and I’ll say, ‘Why do you guys say that?” and you just try to explain to them, you know. ‘Okay, there’s nothing wrong with your perspective [but here’s] why it’s different from [others’], and maybe [now] you can understand this perspective a little bit more.” (Thom, Interview, 9/27/2000) While these teachers agreed that it was possible to teach their students historical empathy, none of the four ever specifically engaged his or her students in constructing their own historical interpretations based on an analysis of multiple historical documents. While, as noted above, they presented their students with multiple perspectives on certain historical events, they never gave their students the specific task of independently analyzing relevant documents and articulating their own perspectives. For example, Elizabeth stated that she “definitely taught [historical empathy] because [she] asked a lot of questions to try to make them realize what people went through” (Elizabeth, Interview,

PAGE 156

145 9/19/2000, 5/29/2001). Mark also thought that most of his students would be able to empathize but that “a few [were] going to have too much trouble with it [because] they just don’t care.” He thought that technology would be helpful because “bringing in pictures of some of these people . . . would make it a little bit more real, [and] help them to get a little bit more into history” (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000). Brian agreed with Mark that apathy and low ability among some of the students posed a problem (Mark, Interview, 3/2/2001), but that using technology so that his students could “see certain images or communicate with other people . . . rather than . . . look at a textbook” would be helpful (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000, 3/2/2001). Thom, like the other teachers, never planned a learning activity that specifically focused his students on the process of historical empathy. Yet, he appeared to clearly understand the concept, wondering, for example, if his students could ever empathize with the fate of the Jewish people during the Holocaust because “they have no events in their lives that can really compare” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). Simultaneously, he appeared to understand how technology could perhaps help his students to better understand the multifaceted complexity of historical events: Technology is a good way to teach these concepts of historical thinking, multiple perspectives, and historical empathy. You know, they read personal narratives from people who survived the Holocaust, or the bombing of Nagasaki, instead of reading it from a book where they said, ‘the bomb is dropped, and 40,000 people were killed instantly, and 20,000 died later.’ You can see a picture of a burn victim, they can actually see that these people lived, that some of them died from radiation, some of them survived with horrible wounds. It goes in-depth, it gives them perspective and hopefully, if they read the personal narratives, then they can understand or at least empathize with what is going on, try to get a different perspective. (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001) To the teachers in this study, historical thinking primarily referred to being able to understand multiple perspectives within their own historical context. As such, their

PAGE 157

146 understanding of the concept did not include their students’ active independent construction of their own meaning through historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy. However, these teachers all included perspective taking in their teaching on several occasions. While they often used the Internet to plan learning activities involving multiple perspectives on historical events, they generally printed out the documents they found for their students to read and discuss in class. Generally, they themselves presented and explained these multiple perspectives in the format of a PowerPoint lecture. Sometimes they had to do so completely in hard copy, as Brian once did when he wanted to illustrate the difference between medieval and Renaissance art (Brian, Observation, 9/29/2000). While in the PROTEACH program, these beginning social studies teachers twice experienced how to teach a lesson focused on multiple perspectives, something which Mark, Brian and Thom decided to do early on in their own classroom. Brian and Mark both taught a lesson on the Boston Massacre (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000; Mark, Observation, 10/3/2000), while Thom did his on the Battle of Lexington (Thom, Observation, 8/25). For these lessons, these three teachers decided to print out the documents and guiding questions that accompanied the materials they had received while in PROTEACH. On another occasion, Thom decided, however, to use several web sites to develop his own multiple perspectives unit on the Civil War. It “took [him] a long time . . . 10 hours . . . to pick ” six different soldiers’ letters or diary entries, three from the North, three from the South” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). To read and analyze these letters, Thom divided his students into six groups. Each group became an expert on its soldier, completed a Soldier Worksheet, and then chose a group leader. The remaining

PAGE 158

147 group members then each received another separate Soldier Worksheet for each letter or diary entry to find out information about the other five soldiers as they rotated from group leader to group leader. The worksheets comprised guiding questions to identify the author and the addressee, when and where it was written, and other facts the students might have found interesting. After completing this jigsaw activity, Thom conducted a discussion on why “people do extraordinary things and why [these soldiers] were willing to die for their beliefs” (Thom, Email, 5/31/2001). Unfortunately, when these teachers tried to use technology to encourage their students to engage in their own perspective taking, and develop a sense of historical empathy, the results were often disappointing. On one occasion, Thom attempted to have his students complete his webquest on Christianity in Ancient Rome, in which they had to specifically research, analyze, and present, through an email, four different Roman and Jewish perspectives on the rise of Christianity. However, due to a network error, his students were not able to access his web site. He then simply printed out the assignment, asked the students to access and review the web sites he had listed for them, and instructed them to verbally present their position to him the next school day (Thom, Observation, 2/2/2001). Brian’s webquest, the Africa Safari Project, included a History as well as a News section with links to web sites his students could use to find information. While these two particular assignments could have actively involved his students in doing history, the instructions for completing the task actually discouraged them from actively creating their own meaning: Research the history of your country. Next, you will write at least three paragraphs (4-6 sentences per paragraph) about your country’s history. In the first paragraph

PAGE 159

148 you should mention a) ancient people who once inhabited your country, b) your country during imperialism, and c) your country’s struggle for independence. (Brian, Observation, 10/31/2000) Even though several weeks later his students made positive comments about this project, the depth of their knowledge appeared questionable. Asked what they had learned about their country from this webquest, they gave such vague responses as “that there’s nice animals and stuff like that, [and] they have money problems” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). Furthermore, they were not able to present their PowerPoint “because the thingy [projector] broke” and so “he took them up, and he never said nothing after about it” (Shamika, Interview, 12/8/2000). As in Brian’s webquest, the instructions in Thom’s first World War II Country Project webquest, assigned during the fall term, were very broad. His juniors had to “research an individual who had an impact either socially, politically, or militarily or a combination of any of these impacts on American History in the World War II time era from 1940-1945.” Besides written instructions on how to log on to the school’s network, Thom also listed the URLs of five major search engines for his students to conduct their Internet research. They were “required to find three [separate] sources of information on the individual [that] may be from a book, encyclopedia, Internet site, or any other acceptable source.” They had to make an index card for each resource, which had to include notes from that source, as well as a bibliographic reference. Lastly, they were required to “present their PowerPoint show,” which had to include 10-15 slides with major points and at least three pictures, “along with an oral report” (Thom, Observation, 10/27/2000).

PAGE 160

149 As partially listed below, the instructions for Thom’s second World War II Country Project webquest, assigned during the spring term, were much more specific, and he required his sophomores to answer historical thinking questions in several of the 22 slides of their PowerPoint presentations: 1. Biography of country’s political leader (5 slides). a. Slide 1.iv. Picture of individual. b. Slide 2.i. Ideology of political system in use throughout most of the war. 1. Why did the political leader adopt this ideology? 2. What did he/she do to help/hinder the country? 2. Biography of military leader (5 slides). c. Slide 3.i. Actions that your military leader did or was involved in. 1. Did your military leader do anything that had never been done before? 2. Was your military leader at the right place at the right time or the wrong place at the wrong time? d. Slides 4-5.i. Historical significance and major accomplishments of military individual. 1. Why is your military leader remembered? 2. What did he/she do to help/hinder the country? 3. Historical social event (5 slides) b. Slide 2.i. How or why did the event take place? 1. What factors contributed to the event? 4. Synopsis of country from its entrance into World War II to its conclusion of conflict (5 slides). c. Slide 5.i. Describe the legacy of World War II regarding your country. 1. What did your country lose/gain as a result of WW II? To direct his students’ research, Thom listed several general web sites pertaining to World War II. Also, for each country he separately listed the names of important people, places and events, as well as some key concepts and other pertinent websites. In addition to a bibliographical slide, in which the students had to list their three sources and “state which work [each] had done” for the project, they were also required to develop a 10-15 minute presentation, for which Thom included a rubric with specific criteria to evaluate

PAGE 161

150 their work as excellent, good, acceptable, or unacceptable (Thom, Observation, 5/18/2001). As a result of this approach to the assignment, this time the quality of the content in the PowerPoint presentations was much better than during the first semester. The students clearly spent much more time doing their own research while deciding how to answer the guiding questions. While they sometimes continued to blindly “copy and paste” text, images, as well as audio and video clips from the Internet into their PowerPoint presentation, they nonetheless spent more time interpreting and making sense of their research findings (Thom, Observation, 5/21/2001, 5/22/2001): Germany When the Holocaust started it really had nothing to do with the Jewish people. Hitler was angry that Germany was doing so poorly and therefore he blamed the Jews for all their problems. Hitler adopted Nazism because he wanted to blame Germany's economic troubles on Jews and Communists. The Jews were persecuted because they were easy targets throughout German history. Homosexuals, gypsies, prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses and others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust continued. By the end of the war as many as six million of these people had been killed along with between five and six million Jews. Does the focus on the Jewishness of the Holocaust take away from or minimize the suffering of the millions of non-Jews who were persecuted? Do the Jews, unintentionally perhaps, try to keep all the suffering for themselves? No. On the other hand, does the Holocaust have a particularly crucial and central Jewish element, even though millions of others died? Simply put, the answer is yes. The Holocaust, from its conception to its implementation had a distinctly Jewish aspect to it and, arguably without this Jewish aspect, there would have been no Holocaust. Most of the non-Jewish people would not have been killed because the killing machinery would not have been put into operation. Himmler was remembered by the way he acted. He made the first camp and gave a horrible speech: “I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. The Jewish people are being exterminated. Every Party member will tell you, perfectly clear, it’s part

PAGE 162

151 of our plans, we’re eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter.” Himmler didn’t help the country. He made it worse by making camps that killed all the Jews. He destroyed the lives of all these people. He destroyed the bond that held the country together. By doing what he did, by listening to orders by Hitler, Heinrich Himmler died for what he had done. Italy [Mussolini’s] biggest mistake, however, was the decision to enter the Second World War. On 10 June 1940, Germany had been at war with Britain and France since the previous September, but Italy was still at peace, and had little reason to fear that any of the other powers would attack it. Japan Committed to the principle that Japan's military strength must be rooted in a developed industrial economy, Tojo urged in the early 1930's the reorganization of the army and, at the same time, the integration of the resources of Manchuria with the economy of Japan. The military was successful in invading China and this is how they gained most of their support. Great Britain The part of Winston Churchill in World War 2 is well known to most people. In the war he was Britain’s Prime Minister. Like the President in the U.S., the Prime Minister made a lot of the calls and had to hold the country together during this dark time. Churchill had to do this while many cities in the Battle of Britain were obliterated by German bombers. Churchill gave many speeches and kept the spirit of the people high. Montgomery’s historic significance is that he defeated Rommel in Africa. With this win it lifted the Allies to win (along with Stalingrad) the big one. Even though he would suffer a defeat at Arnhem, he was a great general. [The country] saw women return to the factories and prove themselves just as able as men in the labor-intensive factories, the manual and clerical crafts, and the introduction of women into the armed forces. It also brought the whole of the United Kingdom together in a total war effort, as everything and everyone in the country was working towards one goal. Victory. Soviet Union Stalin wanted to gain full power over the Soviet Union. Stalin ruled by terror during most of his years as dictator. Stalin's key weapon in imposing terror on his country was the secret police. Stalin executed or jailed most of those who had helped him rise to power because he feared they might threaten his rule. He changed the Soviet

PAGE 163

152 Union from an undeveloped country into one of the world's great industrial and military powers. Stalin had most of the power in the Soviet Union. Stalin nationalized all industry and commerce. He also ordered that hundreds of thousands of peasants be deported and he made it so that the government controlled all social activity. Unlike other leaders he killed his own civilians. He killed over 30 million people. Stalin demanded that the millions of Soviet citizens who were living outside of the Soviet borders be sent back to the Soviet Union. He considered all of these people to be traitors and sent them all to labor camps. Most of the civilians were killed. Stalin is remembered for his strict control, killing his own civilians, and turning the Soviet Union into one of the world’s largest military and political powers. United States Roosevelt will be remembered for bringing Americans through World War II and creating the New Deal. The New Deal, which was brought forth by Roosevelt during the Great Depression, created new jobs and opportunities for America to get back on its feet and through the Great Depression. Sadly enough President Roosevelt did not live out his fourth term long enough to see the Allies win World War II. During World War II, while men were away fighting, women stepped in to take over weapons construction. During World War II, women throughout the United States enlisted in the war effort. Many took manufacturing jobs once held by their husbands. These women worked as welders, tank builders, et cetera. These excerpts from the PowerPoint presentations, created by Thom’s sophomores, underscore the tremendous importance of the role of the teacher in using computers in the process of historical inquiry. Directing his students’ research on the Internet with specific questions, and coaching them how to create and present effective PowerPoint presentations, improved their perspective taking abilities, and, to some extent, their ability to empathize with people in the past by trying to better understand why they did what they did. Developing pedagogical content knowledge Using computers to help students to do their own historical inquiry is still an emerging trend. While many social studies teachers continue to rely on the textbook,

PAGE 164

153 some are willing to use technology and take their chances in trying to develop more student-centered approaches to the teaching and learning of history. Rogers (1995) refers to such teachers as innovators--adventuresome individuals who launch new ideas into existing systems. The teachers in this study generally used computers in one of two settings, their own classroom or the computer lab. Brian had no computers at all in his classroom except his personal desktop, which lacked PowerPoint software. When he discovered an underused and neglected computer lab with 30 old computers, however, he decided to begin using it regularly with his students. Thom had a teacher computer but no student computers in his room until he received two new computers during the second semester; these computers, however, were not connected to the Internet. Elizabeth had a teacher computer, a destination unit, and four to six student computers in her room. She did not systematically use the student computers, except briefly for two virtual tours. Like Brian, Mark did not have a teacher computer in his classroom, although there were two old student computers, only one of which was connected to the Internet. To compensate for not having a teacher computer, Mark brought his personal laptop to school daily. Whereas Elizabeth did not attempt to find out if the computer lab at her school was available for her students and how to sign up for it, Thom competed with other teachers for using his school’s lab. More comfortable in his own portable, Mark felt unsupported when he tried to obtain help to find out how to use the lab. At the same time, he felt intimidated by having to manage his students in a lab setting (Mark, Observation, 4/17/2001). The following vignette describes what typically happened as, throughout

PAGE 165

154 their first year, the beginning social studies teachers in this study attempted to use technology with their students. Vignette 1 Life in the twilight zone. The first time the teachers in this study used computers typically took place within the setting of their own classroom and involved the use of PowerPoint software. On a typical day, especially during the beginning of the academic year, PowerPoint was used to deliver text-heavy lectures, which occasionally included an image. For each lecture, the students were required to take notes. The blinds are down, and the ceiling lights are out. It is rather dark in the room, and three students on the back row have gone to sleep. Occasionally, Thom asks a question. Some student will answer briefly, as occurred when a student on the front row raised his head to call out, “native,” only to go right back to sleep. When one of the slides includes an image, Thom tends to rush on without drawing his students’ attention to its significance. It seems as if he feels pressured to cover content. Finally, when the lecture ends, Thom turns on the lights. “Okay, let’s take about a three-minute break. You guys need to wake up!” (Thom, Observation, 9/15/2000; 10/17/2000) After such initial experiences, Mark and Thom both began to explore more creative ways to increase their students’ involvement. Thom, for example, began to hand out printouts of his PowerPoint lectures on which he had left some of the slides blank so that his students, especially those with special needs, could more easily follow along during his lectures and fill in the missing information. At the same time he began to use the printouts as a way to provide his returning students with the work they had missed while they were absent. Especially when these teachers had had enough time to plan and create more sophisticated PowerPoint presentations, their students’ involvement increased notably: The class is getting reading for another PowerPoint presentation. Mark has picked up the projector and hooked it up to his own laptop. An excited student has the

PAGE 166

155 honor of operating the mouse to forward the slides. “What I want [for] you to do today in the PowerPoint is to go through some people. Yes, you will have to take some notes. I want to give you a background, just a little.” (Mark, Observation, 10/03/2000) The slides are nicely done, with an American theme background. Telling the students they “should know these issues,” Mark discusses the views of the four main candidates for the U.S. presidency: Bush, Gore, Nader, and Mr. Dryden himself. As an independent candidate, Mr. Dryden presents himself at graduation wearing his cap and gown standing next to the state flag, which cracks up his students. Each time Mark discusses Nader’s viewpoint on a particular issue, his students urge him to hurry up so they can find out his perspective. A good communicator, Mark is able to keep his students’ interest. (Mark, Observation, 10/03/2000) Today’s PowerPoint lecture on life in America at the turn of the century includes nice images of an electronic trolley, a horse and buggy, an elevated train, the digging of the New York subway. It even includes a video clip of the Wright Brothers’ first flight as well as an audio clip of Scott Joplin’s The Entertainer. Upon hearing the audio clip, the students take note and comment, “It’s the ice cream truck!” (Thom, Observation, 10/17/2000) Combining an understanding of what interested their particular students, and using the advanced features of PowerPoint to insert powerful images as well as audio and video clips into the presentation, proved to be an effective tool to better engage the students in this study. However, after many presentations, especially towards the end of the school year, the realization began to set in that PowerPoint also had its limitations. It can get to a point where I think it can be overdone. I probably did that a while in here using PowerPoint. They went from being kind of neat, something different, to ‘Oh great, we have more notes today,’ so that can definitely be a negative. It also got to the point where the PowerPoint went from being a presentation tool to simply an overhead projector with notes on it. That’s something I definitely need to stay away from next year. (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001) Well, at first I thought, ‘Oh, wow, that’s so cool.’ We’d never seen PowerPoint before, but once you look at it every day for the whole year, ‘Ahhhh!’ It’s interesting to me how, like, things will, like, scroll across the screen and all that stuff, but it gets really tiring. (Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001)

PAGE 167

156 Besides giving PowerPoint presentations, the teachers made little additional use of computers in the regular classroom setting, although once Mark allowed those students who had finished an assignment early to use the student computers: “You said you wanted to type.” A female student is indeed typing text, but she is covering the screen so a male student, who is sitting next to her at the other computer, cannot read it. Soon the horseplay begins. The table is beginning to shake so badly, I begin to get worried about the computers toppling onto the floor. Later, during the same class, the male student is playing a game, while another female student is using a paint program. Ignoring these students’ activities, Mark seems to be using the student computers not so much for instructional purposes but rather as a reward for playtime. (Mark, Observation, 12/19/2000) The second typical setting in which the teachers used computers was the computer lab. Typically, this involved requiring the students to do research on the Internet and using an on-line webquest format in order to create a PowerPoint presentation. Because they each were the only teacher in a classroom with a large group of students, the four participants often found this to be a formidable challenge. The students move quietly into the lab. In groups of two, they have to create propaganda against the medieval Church using one of the techniques they reviewed yesterday. After 15 minutes have passed most of the groups have yet to get started. Despite detailed written instructions on how to use PaintShop, many students seem confused and spend their time socializing with their classmates. “What are you doing?” Brian asks when one student is brushing another’s hair. “I’ve asked for help a long time ago, and you’re not coming, so I’m helping her,” she replies. “Okay, come on, let’s see.” “There are 40 minutes left, guys, get it done!” At this point, one group has merely progressed to typing “the” on the monitor screen. “Time’s up, give me your worksheet!” Brian yells, as his students are rushing out the door, leaving chairs wherever they are, and not shutting down some of the computers. “Hey, Mr. Benvenuto, it won’t save.” As one of the students begins to turn off the monitor, his partner gets upset because he wants “to have the best grade. (Brian, Observation, 10/10/2000)

PAGE 168

157 Accepting the challenge, Brian decided nonetheless to continue taking his students to the computer lab. The next time I observed his classroom, he had prepared a webquest with step-by-step requirements. Calling it the Africa Safari Project, he had uploaded this webquest to a commercial site offering free web space. As many of his students once again appeared to be staring at the same screen for a long time, Brian became visibly aggravated and started to walk up and down the two rows of computers with his grade book while taking away points for off-task behavior. They’re supposed to be working in groups but this class just can’t handle it. I think it’s just an odd class. It has an odd mix of students. They like to talk and goof off. A lot of them are repeat students. I also have them right after lunch, and so they tend to be a little more off-task than the morning class. I am going to have to go home and think up something else. They’re not coming back [to the lab]. (Brian, Observation, 10/31/2000) Thom had several similar experiences when he took his students to the computer lab. While his students did not spend their time staring at the screen, they actively explored inappropriate web sites related to sports, cars, music, and other teenage-related topics. On one occasion, Thom tried to complete a webquest on Christianity in Ancient Rome, which he had created with a fellow student while he was in the PROTEACH program. Unfortunately, although he had uploaded the webquest to his school’s web site, network problems prevented him from accessing the site. However, this was only part of the problems he encountered: There’s a lot of problems with technology, in particular the network, a lot of problems with the network not working, working improperly, with the students saving their work, which is convenient because they can make really nice PowerPoints that don’t fit on a floppy disk. The computers don’t have Zip drives here, they can’t use those, so it’s convenient because they can pull a lot of pictures, a lot of video, to make really nice PowerPoints, and it also goes back to problems with the network, you have to have some kind of security. The kids go in there, they like to delete each other’s PowerPoints or falter other people’s PowerPoints, and I’ve had to get on a couple of people’s case for doing that this year, so that’s an

PAGE 169

158 issue. you have to be really prepared when you go into technology. (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001) Mark also created his own webquest, which he called We the People . . . , which he had designed to help his students think about and examine the authors of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, he “got kicked out of the lab” when the school’s administration decided to use the lab as a temporary classroom for teachers whose classrooms were undergoing asbestos removal. Consequently, Mark taught his webquest in the format of a PowerPoint presentation. In his own classroom he did, however, involve his students twice in creating their own PowerPoint presentations in order to teach a section from the chapter in the textbook. Both times Mark brought in his own scanner from home so that his students could copy images from the textbook into their PowerPoint presentations. Using his laptop, Mark’s student groups took turns creating and presenting their PowerPoint show. One of these included an Excel pie chart of the number of slaves owned by various plantation owners, which one student had created with Mark’s assistance (Mark, Observation, 2/21/2001; 4/24/2001). As the requirements for the students’ PowerPoint presentations became more specific in the course of the academic year, so did their quality. For example, when Thom’s students made their first PowerPoint presentations, they violated several basic design principles by using inconsistent fonts and wildly different color schemes from slide to slide. In addition, they often inserted irrelevant or blurred images and made many spelling errors. Not only did the slides contain superficial information, which the students simply read out loud, it also often appeared that the slides’ content constituted the extent of their knowledge. Thom typically concluded his students’ presentations without any constructive feedback, with comments such as, “Okay, nice job, guys,” or “Okay, I just

PAGE 170

159 wanted you guys to get some background information” (Thom, Observation, 11/17/2000). Thom realized that he could improve the quality of his students’ work. As a result, he created an assignment in which they had to create a short PowerPoint presentation on a Renaissance artist, scholar, ruler or explorer. Each of the five slides had to meet specific guidelines as modeled by Thom in a presentation on El Greco. The written assignment included learning objectives, a list of topics from which the students could choose, requirements for a bibliography, instructions for how to locate print and digital sources, as well as specific guidelines for each slide’s content: The group’s slide show will contain five (5) slides with three (3) pictures. Slide 1: This slide will contain the title of your presentation (generally the name of your person) and the name of your group members. Slide 2: This slide will contain biographical information for your person such as name, date born and died, place of birth, religion, etc., and any other information that is considered a “fast fact.” Slide 3: This slide will contain major accomplishments of your person found throughout your research. Include well-known information that relates to how your person impacted history. Slide 4: This slide is for any other information that you find interesting about the person you researched. Slide 5: This slide will include your three (3) bibliographical sources. These “practice” PowerPoint presentations, which had much improved graphic design features as well as more accurate content, became an effective stepping stone for Thom’s students to the much more elaborate and culminating World War II Country Project PowerPoint presentations. The presentations for this project were required to include no less than 22 slides; generally they were of high quality, and they had a rather

PAGE 171

160 consistent layout with less radical color schemes, fewer transition effects, clearer images and, on several occasions, pertinent video as well as audio clips (Thom, Observation, 5/18/2001, 5/21/2001). Although Thom generally remained reluctant to challenge the accuracy of the content of his students’ presentations or their actual knowledge, he became more forthcoming in some components of his feedback: Remember the font needs to be larger than 25. I don’t mind if you’re reading but you need to add information. You just stand there. Try to talk a little louder. Stand up there. Just talk, blabber away. Even if it’s boring, pretend it isn’t. Wait, wait! Explain some of the pictures. (Thom, Observation, 5/21/2001) The presenters’ fellow students, however, did not hesitate to criticize their classmates' poor performance. For example, when one student could no longer contain her laughter at her own inability to pronounce names and key terms in her presentation on Italy, disparaging comments began to sally forth from the class. Student 1: I can’t read it! Thom: I don’t think they can either. Student 2: Okay, boy, open your mouth and talk. Presenter: Sorry, we weren’t finished. Student 3: I’d make them stay after school today and finish it up. Student 4: Wow, quite some college material in here! Student 5: It can’t get much worse than that. (Thom, Observation, 5/21/2001) While Mark never used the computer lab, he twice required his students to make a PowerPoint presentation. Not as specific in his requirements as Brian and Thom, he gave his students verbal instructions to create at least eight slides, of which at least three must contain text, and to include some images. Exhibiting some of the same initial characteristics as Thom’s high school students, Mark’s middle school students likewise created text-heavy PowerPoint presentations, read from their slides without actually being familiar with their content, and rushed past images. Mark differed from Thom,

PAGE 172

161 however, by being less reluctant to provide substantive feedback and more willing to review the value of the PowerPoint presentations with his students. Mark: Remember the old adage, “a picture tells a thousand words.” Use it. Don’t use it to fill space. Student 1: [responding to students reading their slides] It’s the blind leading the blind! Mark: But it is the presenters’ job to know their stuff. And for the audience to ask questions. What else can we do to make it better, could I have taken you to the lab? I guess what I’m hearing is that it’s not so much the technology but it’s the presenters. (Mark, Observation, 4/24/2001) This vignette demonstrated that it took courage for these beginning social studies teachers to use computers in the classroom. Teaching with computers requires an innovative person who is willing to accept challenges, risk failure, and persist. As the teachers in this study continued to use computers, they learned to focus better on their particular students’ needs and interests. As reflective teachers, they took time to think about what went well, what did not, and how they could do things better next time. They learned to find new ways to hold their students more accountable for the time they had spent on the computers, and they began to raise the bar when assessing their students’ work. Consequently, these teachers developed their own pedagogical content knowledge of how to teach with computers. This new knowledge was especially characterized by a developmental approach, as they sought to make their own teaching with computers increasingly student-centered while simultaneously coaching their students step-by-step to higher quality work. Summary The experiences these beginning social studies teachers had in the PROTEACH program profoundly impacted their beliefs about technology and the social studies, as

PAGE 173

162 well as their efforts to integrate technology into their curriculum and instruction. They unanimously believed, although to different degrees, that is was important to integrate technology into their history curriculum. The three most common ways they used computers in their classroom were to create PowerPoint presentations, complete webquests, and conduct research on the Internet. These beginning social studies teachers’ understandings of historical thinking, multiple perspectives, and historical empathy had a significant impact on how effective they were in using computers to engage their students in historical inquiry. While they regularly tried to present multiple perspectives to their students, both with and without computers, the teachers in this study largely failed to place the responsibility for perspective taking in their students’ own hands. However, when they began to direct their students’ research on the Internet with specific guiding questions, and coached them how to create and deliver effective PowerPoint presentations, the students exhibited significant progress in their ability to develop their own perspectives and empathize with people who lived in the past. As these beginning social studies teachers tried to integrate technology into their curriculum and instruction by using computers, they were innovators with regard to pedagogical content knowledge. This required a willingness to accept challenges and risk failure. As they persisted in their efforts, these teachers reflected on how to improve their practice in order to enhance their students’ learning, continued to search for new ways to hold their students more accountable for the time they spent on the computer, and began to raise their expectations.

PAGE 174

163 Technology Infrastructure The technology infrastructure at the respective schools presented both incentives and barriers to the beginning social studies teachers in this study as they tried to use computers to teach historical inquiry. While there existed great discrepancies in the availability of technology at each school, not one of the four teachers in this study was fully satisfied with his or her school’s infrastructure. Assertion 5 Regardless of the available technology, each teacher’s sense of self-efficacy created a unique personal response to the challenges posed by his/her school’s infrastructure and culture. Teacher self-efficacy While the level of access to technology varied greatly among the four schools in this study, each teacher’s level of self-efficacy emerged as the major determining factor for the way in which he or she responded to his or her particular environment. The following illustrates these teachers’ most significant responses to the physical environment they encountered. Vignette 2 – Now what do I do? As Elizabeth began her teaching career, she entered a classroom that seemed to offer her a number of opportunities to integrate technology into her curriculum. In addition to her own teacher computer, the room was equipped with seven student computers as well as a destination unit, all connected to the Internet. But she explained: I have a large television with a computer on it, and, unfortunately, the keyboard does not work at all. I kept plugging in the mouse but it doesn’t seem to work, and I really wish it did because I could use that a lot in class discussions where we’re doing some kind of direct instruction. I could, you know, the whole class could see it, and it seems, like, there’s a lot of similar cases, like, where we have something but not completely have something. Like, I have twelve computers in my class but only six of them work right now. So, it’s, like, we’re almost there but not quite

PAGE 175

164 there. But overall I think we have a lot more than a lot of other schools. So, I am thankful for what I have. Hopefully, I’ll have everything working, everything in my classroom working. (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000) Furthermore, Elizabeth’s school also had a computer lab that in previous years had been available for all teachers to use with their students. However, although they had indicated they were willing to exchange classrooms when asked to by other teachers, the English teachers had nearly exclusive rights to the computer lab during this school year in order to prepare students for the state achievement test. Mark was not as fortunate as Elizabeth, in that he began his teaching career in a portable classroom without a teacher computer. Reluctant to use the computer lab, he nonetheless had two student computers in his room that needed to be reconfigured. He explained: I had two classroom computers. They were old, really incapable of doing what I need to do. At the point where I did have the students working on PowerPoints, I had to put the students on both my laptop and I had to bring in my PC from home for another group to work on. That still only gave me two computers. It took us about two and one half days for five groups to finish, whereas had I had four computers in the classroom, it would have been done in one day. (Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001) While Brian had no computers at all in his classroom when he first began teaching, a few weeks later two computers appeared. When I asked him whether these computers were new and connected to the Internet, he pointed at one to explain his situation: I have one computer. That’s my computer from home. I had to bring it in. It’s a Windows 95. It used to be a great computer, I thought, and now it’s just garbage. I can barely use it. The other [computer], it doesn’t even have a CD-ROM, there’s no CD-ROM in there, so I could not even bring anything download anything on it. Not even that you can write anything on it. So, it’s just sitting on top of the file cabinet right now because some day I hope to use it. That’s the school computer that was given to me as a teacher workstation or something. Yeah, I mean, and the mouse . . . it didn’t even work. I had to bring in my own mouse to get it to work, you know, and I am

PAGE 176

165 the tech representative, supposedly, and that’s the equipment [they give us]. (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000) However, as mentioned previously, Brian discovered an underused computer lab, located across the hallway from his own classroom. Since there was only one other teacher who also used it occasionally, he was often able to use the lab whenever he decided to do so. He stated: The computer labs were horrible. Half the drives work; half of them don’t. The Internet is slow, the printer would work some days, wouldn’t work on others. All the printers don’t work in this lab. And just the equipment is gross. It is! I don’t like touching the keyboards. They’re that dirty! It’s . . . I mean, the table leg, like, it comes right out, there’s three legs on this table here, you can pull it right out. It’s disgusting. When we first came in here, these tables were all wobbly and you couldn’t write on them without it shaking back and forth, and I finally had a janitor come in and change all the tables. But the wiring, I think, is dangerous. (Interview, Brian, 3/2/2001) Thom’s classroom was equipped with an up-to-date teacher computer, but he had no computers for his students. Like Mark and Brian, he also used his own personal laptop to give PowerPoint lectures in his classroom. Although gaining access to the computer lab in the library was very competitive, he managed to sign up his classes on several occasions. He explained: The library lab, which we use to do anything outside of class, they have Macs. They’re all different speeds, memory sizes, and that’s a problem. All the programs have different software installed. It’s not uniform at all, so it’s problematic. (Thom, Interview, 9/15/2000) As the year progressed, however, all teachers experienced some changes in their technology setup. At the end of the first semester Elizabeth had to move to a new classroom. Unable to move the destination unit, she decided to only take 3 of the 7 student computers that were functional at that time. Three months later, the three

PAGE 177

166 computers continued to sit crammed together on a small table as the printer sat unused on the floor (Elizabeth, Observation, 3/19/2001). Mark experienced some improvement in his situation when the two old student computers in his room were finally reconfigured. Unfortunately, only one was connected to the Internet. Since this was the only possible connection to the Internet in the entire classroom, this setup precluded him from using his own laptop to access the Internet for his students to view with the school’s projector (Mark, Observation, 2/21/2001). During the first semester, Brian inadvertently encountered an opportunity to improve his circumstances. He explained: Someone said, ‘There’s this computer in the backroom [of the technology lab] that no one is using and someone just kind of put it back there,’ and I said, ‘I’ll take it, I’ll take a look at it.’ And I am now able to get Windows 98 on it, which is good. It’s slow but it works, I mean, it’s got all the programs I need, it’s got everything I have at my house. (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001) Thom experienced some major improvements in his situation when the computer lab in the school library was outfitted with brand new personal computers during the winter holiday. At the same time, he received two new student personal computers in his classroom, which by the end of the school year had yet to be connected to the Internet. Because of these improvements, Thom’s level of satisfaction with his school’s technology infrastructure had improved greatly by the end of the school year. He said: I think [it’s adequate]. The only issue would be the availability of the computer lab. One of the things that we’ve run into time and again, most of the computers go to where the FCAT [Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test] is. . . . As the social studies department we’ve kind of griped about that, although no one else really wants to use the lab, we’ve griped about that, how [the English teachers] use the library lab all the time as well. I was promised three computers, [which] would allow me not to need to go to the computer lab, and that will eliminate that whole issue. Then, I think if I have three or four [in my own classroom], then they could do the work in [there] and then that

PAGE 178

167 would be really nice. I think, compared to other schools, we have really good infrastructure. (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001) As this vignette demonstrated, the teachers in this study each responded in a unique manner to the technology infrastructure at his or her school. Regardless of whether they found themselves in an optimal environment to use technology, as Elizabeth did, a mixed one, as Thom did, or a deplorable one, as Mark and Brian did, their individual disposition proved to be the deciding factor in whether or not they accepted the challenge. Interestingly, both Mark and Brian taught at schools that offered a technology magnet program. When we went on a tour of the technology labs at Highland Middle School, Mark showed me three computers labs: a reading lab, a math lab, and a third lab (Mark, Observation, 5/5/2001). This third lab, which contained an eclectic mix of new and outdated computers, had an enormous window, which cast a constant glare on the computer monitors. Since it was the only lab available for the regular student population, it had a month-long wait on the sign-up list (James, Observation, 2/21/2001). On the school’s web site, however, its administration showcased a cybercenter that offered a completely Internet-based curriculum for students and support tools for teachers in all subject areas. Furthermore, the school’s newsletter claimed that students would be able to display their creativity through the use of multimedia (Retrieved, 5/15/2001). In reality, however, the cybercenter was exclusively reserved for the students in the school’s technology magnet program. Fortunately, as the recipient of a grant from the school board, obtained through the issue of federal Quality Zone Academy Bonds for schools with low-income populations, the regular student population was scheduled to get a

PAGE 179

168 significant upgrade of the three labs, while all teachers and administrators were scheduled to receive new desktop computers as well. Several years earlier, when Brian’s school was first designated as a technology, math, and science academy, it was outfitted with a videoconferencing room. Although I found no evidence to justify its claims, the school’s informational brochure stated that the students in the academy would learn a variety of hands-on technology-related skills, including programming, web page design, animation, and Internet research. In addition, the brochure claimed that the school had networked computer access in each classroom, plus eight computer labs with CD burners and other professional-quality multi-media projects. In reality, the technology component of the academy was practically non-existent. When Brian first began to teach his technology courses after the winter holiday, the school did not even have its own web page, which is why he decided to teach a web design course. It was also Brian who began to actively use the videoconferencing room after cleaning up the adjoining storage room where dust had literally been collecting for several years. Coincidentally, on the same day he was told that he would be representing the magnet program at a district-wide student recruitment fair, Brian discovered a closet in the storage room of the computer lab he had been using during the fall term in which he found software, hard drives, and a server. Furthermore, he found two scanners, still in boxes, that had never been opened (Brian, Observation, 1/26/2001). At Palmetto High School, as the school year drew to a close, construction was underway to renovate the administrative offices and retrofit the building to connect classrooms to the Internet. At the same time, the school became a serious participant in a

PAGE 180

169 partnership with a regional university in trying to recruit minority students after the state’s governor had abolished affirmative action. By the middle of the spring term, the dilapidated lab, which Brian used during the fall term, had been retrofitted and was now equipped with 30 new PC computers (Brian, Observation, 4/27/2001). And, as the partnership further intensified, the school began to receive more computers as well as other technology support from its partner university (Retrieved June 13, 2002, from http://www.coe.ufl.edu/PDC/oppalliance%7F%7F%.html ). Finally, in terms of the degree to which they were satisfied with how successful they had been in integrating technology in their history classroom, the teachers’ self-perceptions varied. Elizabeth, who least frequently used computers with her students, maintained that she had done “an adequate job” (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2001). Brian and Mark, who regularly used computers with their students, felt they “could have done more,” and “push[ed] a little further” (Interview, Brian, 3/2/2001; Mark, Interview, 5/15/2001). Similarly, Thom, who frequently took his students to the computer lab, and who almost daily used a computer in his classroom to give a PowerPoint lecture, felt that he “really need[ed] to work on doing a better job,” and had “learned [that] you can’t cover everything, [and] need to limit it to a couple of events, and these areas will probably be where the webquests will be” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). Student access to computers In the survey the students in this study provided a relatively neutral response to whether their school had enough computers ( M 2.82, SD 1.26; see Appendix D, Table D-2). Analysis of variance, however, showed a statistically significant difference among the seven surveyed classes ( F (6,145) 4.80, p 000171; see Appendix D, Table D-3). Most notably, Brian’s students disagreed that their school had sufficient computers ( M

PAGE 181

170 2.00, SD 1.05; see Appendix D, Table D-2). This score was statistically significantly different from all other classes (see Appendix D, Table D-4, Item 8), with the exception of one of Thom’s American History classes, whose students also indicated that their school did not have enough computers ( M 2.17, SD 1.05; see Appendix D, Table D-2). Despite the fact that many of the computers were non-functional, Elizabeth’s students generally argued their school had a lot of computers. One student compared this school to her experiences in a school in Ecuador where only the principal had access to a computer (Els, Interview, 5/9/2001). Mark’s students, on the other hand, said they did not get to go to the computer lab enough. They argued that the computers in the lab were old, had been vandalized, and were not working properly. Furthermore, if they were allowed to go at all, they would have to share their computer with other students, who were also trying to get onto the Internet through a slow connection (Interview, 5/1/2001, 5/5/2001). Brian’s students were especially unhappy with the computers at their school. In Shamika’s words, “they’re all broke, [and] I think they can invest in some more” (Shamika, Interview, 12/8/2000). In addition, his students also noted that some classrooms appeared to have better computers than others, but that those computers were being used to prepare students for the state test. The students in one of Thom’s American History classes argued that their school did not have enough computers. This was probably due to their frustrations during the fall term with not being able to get into the computer lab in the library. They felt that teachers and students should be able to use the lab whenever they wanted to, without having to

PAGE 182

171 make reservations. As Jasmin said, “We shouldn’t have to do that, you know, just to use the computers” (Interview, 12/12/2000). In Thom’s other classes, however, the students argued that the school had enough computers. For example, Tamika, who had moved to the area from Long Island the previous year, argued, “We’re very fortunate going to Magnolia High School [because] we have a television in every classroom, a VCR in every classroom, there’s a lot of things this school has that other schools . . . don’t have” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2001). One of Thom’s sophomores even argued that the school had “too many computers.” He felt that, ‘they focus so much on computers, [they neglect] the little things like sports and stuff.” Furthermore, “there’s computers down there [in a room] that have been sitting there since last year, and they don’t even use them, they just have to get them. . . . They just buy computers, you know, to look good” (Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001). In the survey, the students in this study also provided a rather neutral response to whether they could use their school’s computers after the school day ended ( M 2.97, SD 1.39; see Appendix D, Table D-2). ). Analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference among the seven surveyed classes ( F (6, 145) 6.01, p 1.24E-05; see Appendix D, Table D-3). In particular, Mark’s two classes indicated they were dissatisfied with their level of access ( M 1.63, SD 83; M 2.65, SD 1.39; see Appendix D, Table D-2), whereas his class with the lowest score was statistically significantly different from all others (see Appendix D, Table D-4, Item 13). Mark’s students’ comments especially focused on their inability to use the computers in the library, as it was only open to the students 25 minutes before school and 10 minutes after school. Perhaps an additional obstacle was that they could not “go on the

PAGE 183

172 Internet without the librarian’s permission (Talyah, Interview, 5/1/2001). Thom’s students, on the other hand, were pleased with their access to the library’s computers, as it remained open daily for one and a half hours after the regular school day ended (Tim, Interview, 12/12/2000). Impact of the state test A recurring theme that emerged from the observations and interviews, as well as from other documents and sources, was the impact of the state test on the beginning social studies teachers in this study and their students’ access to computers. During the 1999-2000 school year, the Florida Department of Education indicated that all students would have to score at level 3 or above to pass the FCAT, which was administered in March 2000 to all students in grades 4, 8, and 10. In its official report, State and District Scores for All Curriculum Groups, the department reported that statewide 61 percent of all 8th grade students scored below level 3 in reading, while 49 percent did so in math. Likewise, 71 percent of all 10th grade students scored below level 3 in reading, while 49 percent did so in math (Retrieved July 14, 2002, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat/fcinfopg.htm ). During the 2000-20001 school year, each public school in the state was required to publish its FCAT scores in its annual Public Accountability Report to the School Advisory Council, composed of the principal, parents, teachers, other school staff, students, and business community representatives. As a result, schools throughout the state began to redirect their resources towards improving their students’ scores on the state test.

PAGE 184

173 According to Creekside Middle School’s 2000-2001 Public Accountability Report, its eighth grade students’ scores in reading and mathematics were well above the state average; 29 percent scored below level 3 in reading, while 18 percent did so in math. In its official report, School FCAT Reading and Math Results for All Curriculum Groups, however, the Department of Education reported that 36 percent of all 8th grade students at Elizabeth’s school scored below level 3 in reading, while 29 percent did so in math. Regardless of this discrepancy, however, even at Elizabeth’s school the computer lab, which had enough computers for each student to have access to his or her own, was nonetheless used throughout the entire school year as a reading lab to improve the school’s scores on the FCAT. At Mark’s Highland Middle School, the reading and math teachers each “actually [had] their own lab.” Although both labs appeared dilapidated and dirty, and equipped with outdated computers, they were used to prepare students for the FCAT (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000; Observation, 5/15/2001). For example, Allen, one of Mark’s students, had “maybe gone to the computer lab three times this year . . . for, like, one block. It was FCAT. It was FCAT, just a little FCAT test,” he said (Allen, Interview, 5/1/2001). Marlon explained that he had had the same experience: “Me, I haven’t been a lot. I went, like, for my English class, FCAT, and then for my math class for FCAT” (Marlon, Interview, 5/1/2001). Highland Middle School’s 2000-2001 Public Accountability Report revealed that its eighth grades students fared substantially worse on the FCAT than those at Creekside Middle School. Their students’ mean scores for reading and mathematics, which included those of the gifted students in the technology magnet program, were near the state average. In its School FCAT Reading and Math

PAGE 185

174 Results for All Curriculum Groups report, the Department of Education reported that 57 percent of all 8th grade students at Highland Middle School scored below level 3 in reading, while 50 percent did so in math. For most of the school year, Palmetto High School prominently displayed a banner on the front building to remind its students daily to do their best on the FCAT. When I interviewed Brian’s students, they indicated that the better computers were located in their English class, which was “like an FCAT prep class” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). Furthermore, they argued that they spent too much time on the FCAT in English and in math, and that the principal only cared about the “FCAT giv[ing] us a good score” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). According to the school’s 2000-2001 Public Accountability Report, its tenth grade students’ dismal scores were far below the state average. Although not reported in the 2000-2001 Public Accountability Report, the state’s School FCAT Reading and Math Results for All Curriculum Groups reported that 92 percent of all 10th grade students at Palmetto High School scored below level 3 in reading, while 80 percent did so in math. In addition, in a subsequent publication Palmetto High School’s partner university indicated that several of its teachers had received special training at the university “in teaching the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, or FCAT, using technology in the classroom, and enhancing reading comprehension strategies to aid students” (Retrieved February 15, 2002, from http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2002news/allianceexpands.htm ). Early in the school year, Thom remarked that, “apparently the computer labs have been assigned to the English teachers to boost reading scores on the FCAT. The math scores were good last year. There’s one lab left for general use, the one off the media

PAGE 186

175 center” (Thom, Observation, 11/17/2000). According to Magnolia High School’s 2000-2001 Public Accountability Report, its tenth grades students scored above the state average in reading and math. The 2000-2001 Public Accountability Report reported that during the previous school year 60 percent of the students scored below 3 in reading while 31 percent did so in math. According to School FCAT Reading and Math Results for All Curriculum Groups, however, 72 percent of all 10th grade students at Thom’s school scored below level 3 in reading, while 39 percent did so in math. A tour of the school revealed that the facility included two separate FCAT labs with a total of 52 computers, in addition to two English mini-labs with 15 computers each. While there were also several other computer labs for subjects such as technology, business, and TV production, the only lab for general use was the one adjacent to the library, which was often reserved by the English teachers as well because “apparently they love to be in the library with only a few kids in the sign-up lab” (Thom, Observation, 3/27/2001). Like Thom, some of his students argued that the influx of computers into their school was due to the administration’s goal “to get those FCAT scores higher because, you know, they get money, funding, benefits and in order to do that . . . they have to supply what they need” (Jahan, Tamika, Tim, Interview, 12/12/2000). As high stakes testing has become increasingly important, it is apparent that the FCAT has had a marked effect on each of the four schools in this study. Since FCAT scores are part of the public record, public schools in Florida have become more and more concerned about how well their students perform on the test. When scores are especially low, as they were at Mark and Brian’s school, resources are increasingly directed to improving student scores in reading and mathematics. At each of the four schools in this study, this recent development has had a negative effect on the integration of technology in the social studies, in that preferential treatment has been given to the English and math teachers, whose subjects presently constitute the core of the state test. Since they are “at the bottom of the food chain,” social studies teachers tend to be among the last to obtain access to computers, and though they may be asked to “put up FCAT posters in the room” or “include FCAT

PAGE 187

176 skills in [their] curriculum . . . [administrators] don’t give [them] the technology” (Thom, Interview, 10/27/2000). Consequently, the social studies teachers in this study, unfortunately, found their access to computers limited by other teachers whose subjects are on the test. Technology culture At each school in this study, the support for technology as expressed by administrators, teachers, students, and parents formed an important part of its culture. Through their interactions with various stakeholders, the teachers in this study and their students developed their own unique perceptions of whether the integration of technology in their social studies classes was valued by the school community. The teachers affirmed their administrators’ support for using technology in their classroom. Mark, especially, made a point at the beginning and end of the school year to suggest that his administrators appreciated his use of technology: I know the first day I used it, I had both the principal, and then after he left, he sent in one of the assistant principals just to watch, and that day as I was returning it, I let them know that it wasn’t the best lesson I’ve ever done . . . but they let me know that they were excited, just the fact that I was using it. So, yeah, the administration is very helpful with that, very supportive. (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000) They’re real big on that. I’ve been kind of praised in the hallways on several occasions. ‘Oh, there’s Mr. Dryden with the projector. Good, good, I’m glad to see you use it.’ Things like that. So, they’re very much behind it. (Mark, 5/15/2001) Nonetheless, the teachers in this study also reported that the administration at their school lacked a technology vision (Brian, Interview, 9/29/00), or were so concerned about their school’s scores on the state test that they lacked any “perspective of social studies being an enhancing form of reading and writing” (Thom, Interview, 10/27/2000). In the survey, the students in this study provided a rather neutral response to whether their school’s principal and other administrators thought that knowing how to

PAGE 188

177 use technology was important ( M 3.32, SD 1.03; see Appendix D, Table D-2). A comparison of the responses revealed a statistically significant difference among the seven classes ( F (6,145) 2.26, p 040888; see Appendix D, Table D-3). Brian’s students rated their administration’s support of technology significantly lower ( M 2.63, SD 1.38; see Appendix D, Table D-2) than all others, except those in one of Mark’s American History classes (See Appendix D, Table D-4, Item 16). Elizabeth’s students thought that their school’s administrators did “a good job of supplying [them] with computers” (Charlotte, Interview, 5/9/2001), although they were “not sure what they were thinking about computers” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). Mark’s students, on the other hand, argued that if their administrators really cared about computers, they would get them “better computers” and “faster access to the Internet” (Maxine, Marlon, Interview, 5/1/2001; Darren, Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001), just like the students in the technology magnet program (Darren, Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001). Brian’s students’ comments focused on their school’s emphasis on using computers for FCAT preparation (Interview, 12/8/2000). Interestingly, although several of Thom’s students voiced similar concerns about a focus on the FCAT, they generally interpreted the presence of computers to mean that the administration thought that technology was important (Interview, 12/12/2000, 5/22/2001). While Elizabeth taught at a technology-rich school where her colleagues wanted to be “on the cutting edge” (Elizabeth, Interview, 9/19/2000, 5/29/2001), Brian, Mark and Thom were adamant that many of their older colleagues resisted using technology in their classrooms, which was also the case within their respective social studies departments. On the other hand, “the newer teachers that are coming in are pretty adequate with the

PAGE 189

178 technology and software” (Thom, Interview, 10/27/2000), and are more open to trying new things, as became evident to Brian, for example, when the assistant principal introduced the new teachers at Palmetto High School to its unused teleconferencing room (Brian, Interview, 9/29/2000). In fact, although Brian, Mark, and Thom only had completed one technology course during their PROTEACH program, they were considered to be at the forefront of technology on their school’s faculty. They were quickly recognized as innovative teachers and were selected to serve on their school’s technology committee. Although they had some interesting observations, the students in this study tended to agree that most of the teachers at their school thought that knowing how to use computers was important ( M 3.51, SD 0.98; see Appendix D, Table D-2). According to Eric, a sixth grade student, teachers “usually use computers for things, like, that are not in the textbook and they are not sure about themselves” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001). Mark’s students said their teachers believed that computers are important because “the labs are booked all the time” (Shay, Interview, 5/5/2001). Likewise, Brian’s students maintained that he was the first teacher to introduce them to PowerPoint, but they also realized that it was difficult for the teachers sometimes because the computers were outdated (Interview, 12/8/2000). Some of Thom’s students claimed that many of their teachers were “not taking advantage of the resources they [had],” and “didn’t really care” because “they [were] not getting paid that much” (Ranson, Santos, Tamara, Interview, 5/22/2001). Contrasting Thom with an older teacher, Tim argued that using computers would become commonplace “once the new generation of teachers . . . who know how to

PAGE 190

179 incorporate it” dominate the profession, because “they understand what it’s like to be a kid” (Tim, Interview, 12/12/2000). According to the teachers, most students at their school valued the integration of computers into the curriculum because “they’re the generation that’s grown up with them” (Thom, Interview, 10/27/2000), and they understand that “whatever they do . . . [they’re] going to have to be somewhat proficient on computers” (Thom, Interview, 5/22/2001). Brian, however, also argued that students often equate computers with “games” rather than viewing them as “a tool of education” (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001). In the survey, the students in this study also tended to agree that their fellow students thought that knowing how to use computers was important ( M 3.45, SD 1.08; see Appendix D, Table D-2). Analysis of variance, however, showed one particular statistically significant difference ( F (6,145) 2.64, p 019513; see Appendix D, Table D-3). Brian’s students rated their fellow students ( M 2.68, SD 1.5; see Appendix D, Table D-2) significantly lower than those in all of Thom’s and one of Mark’s classes (see Appendix D, Table D-4, Item 19). According to Elizabeth’ students, Creekside Middle School students liked using computers. Some of Mark’s students, however, remarked that, although some students like computers because they “are, like, visual learners” (Marlon, Interview, 5/1/2001), “some just wreck the computers” (Jerome, Interview, 5/5/2001) or “just want to get out of class” (Heather, Interview, 5/1/2001) to “play games and stuff like that” (Maxine, Interview, 5/1/2001). Brian’s students echoed some of the same sentiments that many students at their school simply want “to get on the Internet to look up stuff, fun stuff, [and] not educational stuff, mostly just for entertainment” (Keandra, Interview, 12/8/2000). Tamara, one of Thom’s sophomores, likewise said that

PAGE 191

180 “some [students], like, ruin it for others” even though they know “you’re not supposed to do certain stuff on the computer” (Tamara, Interview, 5/22/20001), like going to “a skateboard . . . web site where they’re not supposed be, [which] really annoys the teacher” (Ranson, Interview, 5/22/2001), or they “just sit there [rather than] work on the computers” (Amber, Interview, 12/12/2001). On the other hand, some of Thom’s juniors argued that the students at Magnolia High School “best understand what technology’s like because they have it at home [as] a resource for not just school but [also their] personal life” (Tim, Interview, 12/12/2000), and that they “are the computer generation, the ones where everything is just busting out before [them]” (Tamika, Interview, 12/12/2000). Throughout the entire school year, none of the teachers in this study had any parent contact them to specifically discuss whether and how they planned to use computers in their curriculum. Nonetheless, Elizabeth thought that her parents “definitely want[ed] some kind of technology” (Elizabeth, Interview, 5/29/2001). Mark, on the other hand, felt that, despite the presence of a technology magnet program at his school, “the school community [had] something to do” with the fact that there was not much support from his students’ parents (Mark, Interview, 10/13/2000). Brian even argued that the parent community at his school was opposed to the technology magnet program at Palmetto High: They want the school to be mainly a community school and not have people from outside the school to come into the school. They want to make sure that we work on what we have here in the school, and build on what we have in the school, and make the students more prepared on the FCAT, before we make them more prepared in technology. (Brian, Interview, 3/2/2001)

PAGE 192

181 Thom perhaps best summarized these teachers’ perceptions of parental support for technology when he said that such support “would fall right along social class or economic status” lines (Thom, Interview, 510/27/2000). Most students in this study indicated in the survey that they had a computer at home ( M 4.4, SD 1.23; see Appendix D, Table D-2). Most of them also agreed with the statement that their parents thought it was important to know how to use computers ( M 3.91, SD 1.09; see Appendix D, Table D-2). However, analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference ( F (6,145) 3.47, p 0003071; see Appendix D, Table D-3). In comparison to all others (See Appendix D, Table D-4, Item 20), Thom’s sophomores rated their parents’ support the lowest ( M 3.26, SD 1.1; see Appendix D, Table D-2), while Brian’s followed closely ( M 3.52, SD 1.39; see Appendix D, Table D-2). In the interviews, the students responded that their own parents thought that computers were important, but they tended to make vague comments about their school’s parent community. For example, they argued that, “you never really know what the other parents are thinking” (Eric, Interview, 5/9/2001), or that “some don’t even know how to use a computer” (Kaylen, Interview, 5/22/2001). Referring to their own parents, they argued that although they were still “fans of computers,” they “[weren’t], like, computer crazy,” and still “want[ed them] to use books” (Charlotte, Els, Juli, Interview, 5/9/2001). Interestingly, some of Mark’s eighth grade students argued that the technology magnet program at Highland Middle School was deliberately situated near the front of the campus to misinform their parents about the actual state of technology in the regular curriculum (Darren, Jerome, Talyah, Interview, 5/5/2001).

PAGE 193

182 According to one of Brian’s students, her father “[hogged] the computer all the time” (Shamika, Interview, 12/8/2000). Another student’s mother often looked up “stuff on the Internet, for, like, clothes or shoes, or something, household stuff.” And although “she [said], ‘you got to learn how to do something on the computer,’ . . . she [wouldn’t] be forcing [her daughter] coming home and spending hours studying or whatever” (Keandra, Interview, 12/12/8/2001). In this manner, administrators, teachers, parents, and students in this study interacted to create a unique culture at each school with regard to the integration of technology in the social studies. While the administrators at each school supported the use of computers, they tended to be primarily focused on how computers could help their students do better on the state test. Both the teachers and students in this study perceived a generational gap between the older and younger teachers with regard to using computers in the classroom. Furthermore, while most students appeared to value the opportunity to use computers, at each school there appeared to be some students who refused to use the computers for appropriate educational purposes. Finally, the socioeconomic status of the parent community as a significant determining factor in its support for integrating technology is inconclusive in this study, but some of the data suggest that this is a factor worth further exploration. Summary Regardless of the level of technology that was available, none of the teachers in this study was fully satisfied with his or her school’s infrastructure. However, each teacher’s sense of self-efficacy created a unique personal response to the various challenges posed by his or her school’s infrastructure. Whether the technology infrastructure was optimal or inferior did not appear to matter. Rather, it was the teachers’ individual disposition that

PAGE 194

183 determined whether he or she accepted the challenge and was satisfied with how effective he or she had been in integrating technology in the classroom. Clearly, three of the four teachers in this study often tried hard to use technology to the fullest extent possible, but one of the teachers seemed predisposed to be less comfortable or less inclined to use technology in the classroom. At each of the four schools in this study, the students indicated that they wanted to have easy individual access to computers not only during the regular school day but also before and after school. While easy student access to recent technology was often problematic, opportunities to use computers before or after school generally remained limited. Furthermore, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test [FCAT] has had a negative impact on the integration of technology in the social studies classroom, as resources have been directed to the subject areas that are being tested on the statewide assessment. This development occurred even when the students scored well on the state test, in that computers were reserved exclusively for remediating students who were expected to experience difficulty on the test. Finally, at each school in this study the various stakeholders created a unique culture with regard to the integration of technology in the history classroom. At each school the administrators generally supported the social studies teachers use of computers. However, their primary focus appeared to be on how computers could help improve their school’s scores on the state test. Interestingly, the students interpreted the availability and quality of the computers at their school as an indication of administrative support or lack thereof. The teachers as well as the students perceived the existence of a generational gap between the older and younger teachers when it came to the integration

PAGE 195

184 of technology in the curriculum. As they emerged as members of a technology vanguard in their school, three of the four participating teachers in this study soon became members of their school’s technology committee. At each school the teachers and students argued that, while the majority of the student population valued using computers, there existed a core group of students who did not. Finally, as none of the teachers had any explicit communication with their students’ parents about the integration of technology in the history curriculum, they found it difficult to assess the level of parental support for technology. In addition, the students indicated mixed support among their parents for computer use, both at school and at home.

PAGE 196

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The summary, recommendations, and suggestions for further study in this chapter focus on the major research questions this research study sought to answer: (1) How well prepared was a typical beginning social studies teacher, who graduated from the PROTEACH program, to use technology in his or her classroom to teach historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy? (2) How well was this beginning social studies teacher able to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy (3) How well did the infrastructure of the school in which the teacher taught enable him/her to integrate technology into the teaching of historical thinking and historical inquiry, including perspective taking and historical empathy. Summary The beginning social studies teachers in this study, who graduated from the PROTEACH program, primarily entered the profession because of a love of the subject and a desire to work with children. While the PROTEACH program helped them to master pedagogical content knowledge, their primary goal was simply to survive the many stresses of the first year of teaching, such as covering the state-mandated curriculum and managing their own classroom. Nonetheless, their youthful enthusiasm 185

PAGE 197

186 and willingness to engage in more student-centered learning activities instilled in many of their students an appreciation of social studies. These teachers also believed that the PROTEACH program had prepared them well to be successful in the classroom. They especially valued having learned how to develop their own lesson plans and greatly appreciated the experiences they gained during their practicums and internship in the classroom. Their effective preparation led them to focus more on professional than personal concerns during their induction into the teaching profession. They were confident about their ability to teach social studies, did not have exceedingly high expectations, and while their classes were large, did not appear gravely concerned about issues related to class size. Instead, their concerns focused on issues such as developing their own curriculum, managing their own classroom, and finding enough time to develop effective student-centered lesson plans. While they were required to participate in a formal induction program, the teachers in this study found it rather useless and redundant, especially after having recently completed the PROTEACH program. Consequently, they spent most of their efforts on developing an informal support network among the teachers nearby, their team members, or their social studies colleagues. This informal network became especially significant because none of the schools offered any type of formal orientation program for its beginning teachers about available technology for their use in the classroom. The teachers in this study, however, all stressed the need for a formal orientation about the technology resources that were available at their school. Furthermore, as their schools appeared to lack a technology support person, they would have welcomed a technology

PAGE 198

187 mentor who might have been able to assist them in the classroom and simultaneously offer them opportunities for professional development. The beginning teachers in this study also believed that the PROTEACH social studies program had prepared them well as subject area teachers, especially in the area of pedagogical content knowledge. Furthermore, they believed that it is important to engage students in historical inquiry. They all understood historical thinking as the ability to understand multiple perspectives within their own historical context. They also considered it important to introduce students to historical inquiry by presenting different perspectives from various groups of people in order to help students understand why people in the past did what they did. However, their understanding of historical empathy tended to be defined in terms of feelings rather than as a considered and active process, embedded in the historical method (Foster & Yeager, 1998). These teachers regularly sought to engage their students in historical thinking and historical inquiry by helping them understand multiple perspectives of people in the past. However, as attested to by some of the student responses in this study, the teachers in this study often struggled to effectively help their students grasp the concepts of historical thinking and inquiry. Especially when the history activities for the students were too broad or involved little effort on their part, the students often lost interest and became disengaged. History activities were more effective when they were thoughtfully facilitated by the teacher and included specific, detailed tasks for each student. On the other hand, sometimes the group activities allowed students to become uninvolved, either because they lacked the necessary skills to engage in cooperative learning or because their group was simply too large. Furthermore, other factors such as superficial, biased,

PAGE 199

188 or competitive lesson materials and/or a lack of teacher content knowledge sometimes provided additional barriers to student learning. As a result, while most students in this study understood that there are multiple perspectives on history, most had difficulty developing a deeper understanding of historical thinking and historical inquiry. In contrast to their limited past experiences with technology in social studies, and because of their aversion to reading from the textbook, the students in this study liked using computers. Generally equating computers with the Internet, they believed that the computer made studying history more interesting because of its interactive nature. And although many students perceived the Internet as the ultimate source of ready-made information for all their needs, they also appeared to realize that using computers has its limitations as well. They recognized that the Internet can be boring too, especially when it resembles a textbook, and that it is often the teacher, rather than the computer, who makes history “fun.” The students in this study also clearly indicated that they generally did not get to spend enough time on the computers at school or in their social studies classes. Instead they liked to be able to regularly use computers to learn, including learning about history, because computers gave them a sense of control over their own learning. They especially perceived the Internet as an exciting way to learn about history because, as they searched for information and tried to make sense out of the multiple sources they encountered, they were able more actively to engage in the “doing” of history. The beginning social studies teachers in this study generally defined the integration of technology in the history classroom as an enhancement or supplement to the curriculum. The experiences they had in the PROTEACH program profoundly impacted

PAGE 200

189 their beliefs about technology and the social studies as well as their efforts to integrate technology into their curriculum. They unanimously believed that it is important to integrate technology into their history curriculum, although they differed dramatically in the extent to and manner in which they did. The one technology course they took in PROTEACH proved to be an especially formative experience, as the three most common ways they used computers in their classroom were to create PowerPoint presentations, complete webquests, and conduct research on the Internet. The teachers’ understandings of historical thinking, perspective taking, and historical empathy had a significant impact on how effective they were in using computers to engage their students in historical inquiry. Often the teachers in this study simply thought it was impossible to teach all their students to think historically. While they regularly tried to teach their students about multiple perspectives, and did so either with or without computers, they largely failed to place the responsibility for perspective taking into the students’ own hands. Likewise, none of the teachers ever specifically engaged his or her students in constructing their own interpretations based on an analysis of multiple historical perspectives and sources, as suggested by the research (e.g., Davis et al., 2001; Foster and Yeager, 1998). Nonetheless, when they began more deliberately to direct their students’ research on the Internet with specific guiding questions, and coached them on how to create and deliver effective PowerPoint presentations, the students’ ability to appreciate multiple historical perspectives and engage in historical empathy improved substantially. As they tried to integrate technology into their curriculum by using computers, these beginning social studies teachers were innovators who tried to develop new forms

PAGE 201

190 of pedagogical content knowledge. Since the PROTEACH program did not address how to teach a group of students with computers in the regular classroom or computer lab, this innovation required a willingness on their part to accept challenges and risk failure. As these teachers persisted in their efforts, they reflected on how to improve their practice in order to enhance their students’ learning. As a result, they continued to search for new ways to hold their students more accountable for the time they spent on the computer, and began to raise their expectations as well. They seemed to take a developmental approach in which they made their own teaching with computers increasingly student-centered while coaching their students to higher expectations of quality work. Regardless of the technology infrastructure that was available at the respective schools, none of the teachers in this study was fully satisfied with his or her school’s infrastructure. However, each teacher’s sense of self-efficacy created a unique personal response to the various challenges posed by his or her school’s infrastructure. Whether the technology infrastructure was optimal or inferior did not appear to matter. Rather, it was these teachers’ individual disposition mattered most, as three of the four teachers in this study often tried hard to use technology to the fullest extent possible, while one of the teachers seemed predisposed to be less comfortable or less inclined to do so. At each of the four schools in this study, the students indicated that they wanted to have easy individual access to computers. While easy student access to recent technology was often problematic, opportunities to use computers before or after school generally remained limited. Furthermore, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test [FCAT] has had a negative impact on the integration of technology in the social studies classroom, as

PAGE 202

191 resources have been directed to the subject areas that are being tested on the statewide assessment, even when the students scored well on the state test. Finally, at each school in this study the various stakeholders created a unique culture with regard to the integration of technology in the history classroom. While the administrators at each school generally supported the social studies teachers use of computers, their primary focus appeared to be on how computers could help improve their school’s scores on the state test. Interestingly, the students interpreted the availability and quality of the computers at their school as an indication of administrative support or lack thereof. The teachers as well as the students perceived the existence of a generational gap between the older and younger teachers when it came to the integration of technology in the curriculum. As they emerged as members of a technology vanguard in their school, three of the four participating teachers in this study soon became members of their school’s technology committee. At each school the teachers and students argued that, while the majority of the student population valued using computers, there existed a core group of students who did not. Finally, the teachers in this study found it difficult to assess the level of parental support for technology, while their students indicated mixed support among their parents for computer use, both at school and at home. Recommendations Based on the findings, the recommendations resulting from this research study are as follows: Because teacher preparation programs significantly impact teacher beliefs about integrating technology in the social studies, they must provide structured opportunities for preservice teachers to learn about, experiment with, and reflect on

PAGE 203

192 what is meaningful to students with regard to using technology in the classroom. To promote this understanding they should be provided with many opportunities in their courses as well as internships to practice what they have learned about teaching with computers in an actual classroom setting. As preservice teachers become more comfortable with using computers in the classroom, their clearer beliefs and increased sense of self-efficacy will make them more inclined to integrate technology in their own curriculum once they become classroom teachers themselves. Teacher preparation programs need to include specific attention to helping social studies teachers integrate technology into “real world” classrooms, where social studies is not necessarily a curricular priority, and not just focusing on integrating technology into ideal settings with abundant resources. Practical strategies for integrating technology into schools with limited resources and infrastructure would “win over” more beginning social studies teachers to technology use. Preservice social studies teachers need to be given many opportunities to reconcile their beliefs about history pedagogy, history content, and classroom management and discipline issues with technology integration, finding multiple ways to integrate technology in a manner that works best for them, and consequently deeming it worth it to continue to do so as they begin their teaching career. The teacher induction process needs to include specific attention to helping beginning social studies teachers integrate technology in the classroom. Schools should provide their beginning teachers with a structured orientation program about what technology is available for them to use in their own classroom. In addition,

PAGE 204

193 they should provide continued opportunities for professional development in future years. Although such opportunities might be helpful for beginning teachers, assigning a technology mentor especially would make it easier for a beginning social studies teacher to get individual support as he/she struggles to survive the many other stresses of being a beginning teacher. Preservice social studies teachers must develop a clear understanding of historical inquiry before they can effectively and appropriately utilize technology to facilitate this approach to the teaching of history. Only when social studies teachers themselves have a clear understanding of historical thinking, perspective taking, and historical empathy will they be able to develop effective and appropriate student-centered learning activities that use computers to actively engage their students to independently do history and construct their own meaning. Because students like to learn about history on computers, schools could facilitate students’ interest in history by providing them with easy access to computers before, during, and after school hours--especially the Internet. Improved access to computers would give students more opportunities to engage in historical inquiry, help them to develop their historical thinking skills through meaningful assignments, as well as do better on the state test. Social studies teacher preparation programs need to place significant and specific emphasis on the evaluation of web sites, since these sources provide social studies students’ most common experience with technology as well as their greatest opportunity for misuse of information. Furthermore, especially as they attempt to introduce their students to multiple perspectives, it is important that beginning

PAGE 205

194 social studies teachers themselves know how to recognize bias in the materials they intend to use in the classroom, and appropriately model the historical inquiry skills they would like their students to acquire. Suggestions For Further Study As discussed in the review of the literature, the research on beginning social studies teachers’ use of technology in the history classroom is still nascent. Little is known about what actually happens in the classroom of beginning social studies teachers who have been strongly encouraged by their teacher education program to integrate technology in their history classes in an effort to engage their students in historical inquiry. While this study has sought to identify some of the issues that are involved in beginning social studies teachers’ decisions regarding whether the use of computers in their respective history classrooms is worth it, suggestions for further study include the following. Studies on the specific impact of preservice teachers’ experiences in their courses at the university, as well as in their internships in the schools, on their beliefs about the use of technology in the social studies classroom. Such studies would contribute towards a better understanding of the various factors that impact beginning social studies teachers’ self-efficacy with regard to integrating technology in their classroom. Studies on the effectiveness of specific strategies used to teach students with computers in the history classroom. Case studies of one particular use of computers in the social studies classroom, such as students creating PowerPoint presentations on history or evaluating conflicting web sites on history, would improve our

PAGE 206

195 understanding of the pedagogical content knowledge that social studies teachers need when teaching with computers. Studies on the effectiveness of formal teacher induction programs that include a focus on the integration of technology in the social studies classroom. What effective practices exist within a real school setting that can provide beginning social studies teachers with an effective support mechanism? Identifying the effectiveness of technology mentorships and professional development opportunities in the social studies would enhance our understanding of strategies that can be used to help beginning social studies teachers successfully integrate technology in their curriculum. Studies on the impact of various levels of student access to computers at their school. Does increased access to computers actually help students to better understand the process of historical inquiry? Case studies of how, when, and why students actually use computers to complete history assignments would help improve our knowledge of how computers can help students do and learn history better. Case studies on the impact of school culture on the use of technology in the history classroom. How do the administrators, teachers, students and parents interact to create unique local communities that value the integration of technology in the social studies classroom? Such in-depth studies would serve to better identify the various factors that either encourage or inhibit the actual use of computers in the social studies classroom.

PAGE 207

196 Longitudinal studies of beginning social studies teachers beyond their first year in the classroom. Such studies would provide insight into how beginning social studies teachers may continue to improve in their ability to effectively integrate technology in the teaching of history. Studies on student attitudes towards the use of technology in the social studies classroom. In addition to qualitative studies, survey studies, comparable to the preliminary student survey in this research study, would contribute to a deeper understanding of the importance of student attitudes based on age, gender, ethnicity, and other factors. The scope of such studies could be extended to include a focus on other stakeholders such as administrators, teachers, and parents. Quantitative studies on the technology infrastructure at particular schools, and the actual use of the available resources by social studies teachers. Such studies would contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors that influence the degree to which social studies teachers actually use the technology that is available to them. In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that the integration of technology in the history classroom is still an emerging phenomenon. As preservice social studies teachers who have been strongly encouraged to use computers in their classroom continue to enter the teaching profession, they will face an ongoing struggle to effectively engage their students in historical inquiry. However, as beginning social studies teachers continue in their efforts to use computers in the classroom, these machines will present new opportunities to enhance teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and students’ understandings of history, all of which make the teaching and learning of history worth it, and ultimately more engaging.

PAGE 208

APPENDIX A TEACHER ENTRY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 1. Why did you decide to become a teacher? What is your philosophy of teaching? What kind of teacher would you like to be? 2. In general, do you think the PROTEACH program has adequately prepared you to become a teacher? What are some of its strengths and its weaknesses? 3. Specifically, do you think the PROTEACH program has adequately prepared you as subject area teacher? Why or why not? 4. Specifically, do you think the PROTEACH program has adequately prepared you to use technology in the social studies classroom? Why or why not? 5. As a beginning teacher, what are your goals for your first year? What do you hope to accomplish, both for yourself and your students? 6. What does the concept of “historical thinking” mean to you? 7. What does the concept of “multiple perspectives” mean to you? 8. What does the concept of “historical empathy” mean to you? 9. What does the concept of educational technology mean to you? What are the different forms of technology that come to mind when you think about integrating technology into your curriculum? 10. What are your thoughts about the importance of teaching your students about historical thinking, multiple perspectives and historical empathy? 11. What are your thoughts about the pros and cons of instructional technology, i.e. the use of computers in the social studies classroom? 12. Assuming you decided to teach your students about historical thinking, multiple perspectives and historical empathy, what kinds of topics would you prefer to focus on? 197

PAGE 209

198 13. Assuming you decided to teach your students about historical thinking, multiple perspectives and historical empathy, what kinds of learning activities would you plan for them? Do you see technology fitting into your learning activities? If so, how? If not, why not? 14. Do you think it is possible to teach your students about historical thinking? Why or why not? Do you see a role for technology in teaching historical thinking? If so, what? If not, why not? 15. Do you think it is possible for your students to learn about historical events from multiple perspectives? Why or why not? Do you see a role for technology in teaching multiple perspectives? If so what? If not, why not? 16. Do you think your students are able to develop historical empathy? Why or why not? Do you see a role for technology in teaching historical empathy? If so, what? If not, why not? 17. Do you think your school has an adequate infrastructure for you to be able to integrate technology into your curriculum? Why? Why not? 18. Do you think that your school's administrators, colleagues, students and parents value the integration of technology into your curriculum? Why? Why not? 19. How much do you hope and expect to be able to integrate technology into your curriculum? 20. Do you have any additional questions/comments?

PAGE 210

APPENDIX B TEACHER EXIT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 1. Why did you decide to become a teacher? What is your philosophy of teaching? What kind of teacher would you like to be? 2. In general, do you think the PROTEACH program has adequately prepared you to become a teacher? What do you think were some of its strengths and its weaknesses? 3. Specifically, do you think the PROTEACH program prepared you well to teach social studies? Why or why not? 4. Do you think the PROTEACH program adequately prepared you to use technology in the social studies classroom? Why or why not? 5. As a beginning teacher, what have been your goals? What did you hope to accomplish, both for yourself and your students? 6. What does the concept of “historical thinking” mean to you? 7. What does the concept of “multiple perspectives” mean to you? 8. What does the concept of “historical empathy” mean to you? 9. What does the concept of educational technology mean to you? What are the different forms of technology that come to mind when you think about integrating technology into your curriculum? 10. What are your thoughts about the importance of teaching students about historical thinking, multiple perspectives and historical empathy? 11. What is your thinking about the pros and cons of instructional technology, i.e. the use of computers, in the social studies classroom? 12. What kinds of topics would you end up choosing to teach your students about historical thinking, multiple perspectives, and historical empathy? 199

PAGE 211

200 13. What kind of learning activities about historical thinking, multiple perspectives and historical empathy did you actually plan for your students, and did you end up using technology in these learning activities? 14. a. Did you teach your students about historical thinking? How did you use technology to do that? b. Do you think you were effective in teaching your students about historical thinking? Why? Why not? 15. a. Did you teach your students about multiple perspectives? How did you use technology to do that? b. Do you think you were effective in teaching your students about multiple perspectives? Why? Why not? 16. a. Did you teach your students about historical empathy? How did you use technology to do that? b. Do you think you were effective in teaching your students about historical empathy? Why? Why not? 17. Did your school have an adequate infrastructure for you to be able to integrate technology into your curriculum to the degree you wanted to? Why or why not? 18. Do you think that your school's administrators, colleagues, students and parents value the integration of technology into your curriculum? Why? Why not? 19. a. Specifically to the technology course in PROTEACH, did it prepare you well for your first year of teaching? What was good about that course, and what was weak about it? b. If you could have changed anything about that particular technology course how would you have changed it, and why? c. How much have you been able to integrate technology into your curriculum? d. Would you say that you are satisfied with the degree to which you have been able to specifically teach those historical inquiry skills such as historical thinking, multiple perspectives, and historical empathy? e. Looking back on your teaching experience so far, what have been some of your most rewarding experiences, and why? f. Looking back on your teaching experience so far, what have been some of your most discouraging experiences, and why?

PAGE 212

201 g. Do you want to continue being a social studies teacher? 20. Do you have any additional questions/comments?

PAGE 213

APPENDIX C STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 1. Do you like social studies? Why or why not? 2. What did you actually hope to learn in your social studies course? 3. Do you like your teacher? Why or why not? 4. Do you like using computers? Why or why not? 5. In the past, how much have your social studies teachers used computers in their classrooms? What did they use them for? How did they use them? 6. What is historical thinking? 7. What does multiple perspectives mean to you? 8. What is historical empathy? 9. How do you think you can sue computers to learn about history? 10. Do you think you can use computers to learn about historical events from multiple perspectives? Why or why not? How would you do it? 11. Do you think your school has enough computers? Why? Why not? 12. Do you get to spend enough time on computers at your school? Why? Why not? 13. Do you think using computers in social studies helps to make the subject more interesting? Why or why not? 14. Do you get to spend enough time on computers in your social studies classes? Why or why not? 15. Do you ever use computers outside of the social studies classroom to complete social studies assignments? Where do you use them, what kind of things do you use them for, and how often do you use them? 16. Do you think that your school’s administrators, teachers, students and parents think technology is important? Why? Why not? 202

PAGE 214

203 17. Do you have any additional questions/comments?

PAGE 215

APPENDIX D STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS Survey Instrument Please answer the following questions by circling what applies to you. 1. My age is: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. My gender is: male female 3. My ethnic group is: white black Hispanic Asian Indian multi Please circle the number that best corresponds to your beliefs: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree. 1. I like social studies. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I usually make good grades in social studies. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I like my social studies teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I like using computers. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My social studies teachers in the past have used computers a lot. 1 2 3 4 5 204

PAGE 216

205 6. Computers make learning more interesting. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Computers can help you to learn about historical events from multiple perspectives. 1 2 3 4 5 8. My school has enough computers. 1 2 3 4 5 9. At my school I get to spend enough time on computers. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Computers make learning about social studies more interesting. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I get to spend enough time on computers in my social studies classes. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I use computers a lot outside of the social studies classroom to complete social s studies assignments. 1 2 3 4 5 13. My school has computers I can use during after school hours. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I have a computer at home. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I use computers a lot to do school work. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 217

206 16. My school's principal and other administrators think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Most teachers at my school think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 18. This year my social studies teacher likes to use computers. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Most students at my school think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 20. My parents think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 218

207 Table D-1. Student Composition by Teacher and Course Teacher Total Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Course WC AMH AMH WH AMH AMH WH N 152 25 19 20 19 26 24 19 Mean Age 11.44 13.21 13.5 15.68 16.42 16.17 15.84 Gender Male 73 16 8 6 10 15 9 9 Female 79 9 11 14 9 11 15 10 Ethnicity Caucasian 98 19 10 8 1 21 22 17 African American 45 3 9 10 18 4 1 0 Hispanic 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 Asian 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Native American 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Multiracial 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 Note : WC=World Cultures; AMH=American History; WH=World History.

PAGE 219

Table D-2. Student Attitudes to the Use of Technology in their Social Studies Courses Item Combined Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 WC AMH AMH WH AMH AMH WH M 3.57 3.64 3.74 3.4 2.89 3.73 3.58 3.89 1. I like social studies. SD 1.07 1.25 1.1 1.27 1.15 0.72 0.83 0.94 M 3.88 3.88 4 3.8 3.47 4.15 4.04 3.68 2. I usually make good grades in social studies. SD 1.1 1.27 1.15 1.11 1.35 0.83 1.04 0.89 M 4.49 4.04 4.58 4.55 3.63 4.85 4.83 4.89 3. I like my social studies teacher. SD 0.91 1.27 0.51 0.76 1.3 0.46 0.38 0.32 M 4.5 4.68 4.63 4.7 4.52 4.5 4.21 4.26 4. I like using computers. SD 0.78 0.56 0.68 0.57 0.77 0.76 1.02 0.93 M 2.44 2.44 2.53 2.3 2.63 2.38 2.41 2.42 5. My social studies teachers in the past have used computers a lot. SD 1.09 1.16 1.17 1.3 1.26 0.9 1.06 0.9 M 4.15 4.36 4.11 4.25 4.32 4.31 4.04 3.63 6. Computers make learning more interesting. SD 0.96 0.91 0.99 0.91 1 0.84 0.81 1.211 M 4.07 4.36 3.84 4.05 4.26 4.15 3.79 3.94 7. Computers can help you learn about historical events from multiple perspectives. SD 0.87 0.81 0.9 1.05 0.93 0.84 0.78 0.78 M 2.82 3.28 2.94 2.9 2 2.88 2.17 3.57 8. My school has enough computers. SD 1.26 1.43 1.08 1.29 1.05 1.14 1.05 1.07 M 2.38 2.32 2.26 2.85 1.84 2.35 2.25 2.79 9. At my school I get to spend enough time on computers. SD 1.12 1.44 1.19 1.18 0.9 0.8 0.85 1.13 M 3.82 4.04 3.84 3.85 3.26 4.27 3.79 3.47 10. Computers make learning about social studies more interesting. SD 1.12 1.17 0.95 1.09 1.56 0.83 0.78 1.22 208

PAGE 220

209 Table D-2. Continued Item Combined Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 M 2.51 2.32 2.52 2.05 2.57 2.85 2.46 2.74 11. I get to spend enough time on computers in my social studies classes. SD 1.09 1.22 1.12 1.05 1.26 0.97 1.02 0.93 M 2.75 2.52 2.79 3.05 2.74 3.04 2.46 2.68 12. I use computers a lot outside of my social studies classroom to complete social studies assignments. SD 1.33 1.42 1.23 1.39 1.45 1.31 1.1 1.49 M 2.97 3.52 1.63 2.65 3.37 2.77 3.08 3.68 13. My school has computers I can use during after school hours. SD 1.39 1.56 0.83 1.39 1.38 1.14 1.01 1.38 M 4.4 4.68 4.42 4.35 3.74 4.38 4.79 4.26 14. I have a computer at home. SD 1.23 0.85 1.3 1.26 1.66 1.32 0.83 1.19 M 3.48 3.76 2.89 3.3 3 3.88 3.63 3.63 15. I use computers a lot to do school work. SD 1.26 1.16 1.29 1.38 1.29 1.17 1.1 1.3 M 3.32 3.72 3.26 3.5 2.63 3.38 3.33 3.32 16. My school's principal and other administrators think that knowing how to use computers is very important. SD 1.03 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.38 0.98 0.87 0.48 M 3.51 3.6 3.42 3.6 3.16 3.73 3.54 3.42 17. Most teachers at my school think that knowing how to use computers is very important. SD 0.98 1.15 0.77 1.19 1.17 0.83 0.93 0.69 M 3.84 3.28 3.79 3.65 3.63 4.46 4.33 3.58 18. This year my social studies teacher likes to use computers. SD 1.14 1.06 1.23 1.31 1.5 0.86 0.7 0.84 M 3.45 3.72 3.21 3.45 2.68 3.77 3.58 3.47 19. Most students at my school think that knowing how to use computers is very important. SD 1.08 1.06 1.23 0.83 1.5 0.95 0.83 0.84 M 3.91 3.92 4.11 4.2 3.52 4.35 3.88 3.26 20. My parents think that knowing how to use computers is very important. SD 1.09 1.15 1.05 0.95 1.39 0.8 0.95 1.1 Note 1: WC=World Cultures; AMH=American History; WH=World History Note 2 : The scores range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

PAGE 221

210 Table D-3. Analysis of Variance of Student Attitudes to the Use of Technology in their Social Studies Courses df (6, 145) Item F-value p-value Significant 1. I like social studies 1.913315 0.082423 2. I usually make good grades in social studies. 0.944901 0.464997 3. I like my social studies teacher. 7.220219 9.32E-07 *** 4. I like using computers. 1.261318 0.278901 5. My social studies teachers in the past have used computers a lot. 0.180494 0.981808 6. Computers make learning more interesting. 1.462719 0.195021 7. Computers can help you learn more about historical events from multiple perspectives. 1.356753 0.236025 8. My school has enough computers. 4.799158 0.000171 *** 9. At my school I get to spend enough time on computers. 1.953388 0.076111 10. Computers make learning about social studies more interesting. 2.043404 0.063547 11. I get to spend enough time on computers in my social studies classes. 1.302937 0.25948 12. I use computers a lot outside of my social studies classroom to complete social studies assignments. 0.688993 0.658824 13. My school has computers I can use during after school hours. 6.00649997 1.24E-05 *** 14. I have a computer at home. 1.627374 0.143558 15. I use computers a lot do school work. 2.041629 0.063775 16. My school's principal and other administrators think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 2.259821 0.040888 ***

PAGE 222

211 Table D-3. Continued Item F-value p-value Significant 17. Most teachers at my school think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 0.490243 0.814855 18. This year my social studies teacher likes to use computers. 3.792549 0.0011539 *** 19. Most students at my school think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 2.6144 0.019513 *** 20. My parents think that knowing how to use computers is very important. 3.472827 0.0003071 *** Note : *** indicates a statistically significant difference.

PAGE 223

212 Table D-4. All Pairwise Comparisons of Student Attitudes to the Use of Technology in their Social Studies Courses Tukey's HSD ( =.05) A reported score indicates a statistically significant difference between pairs. 3. I like my social studies teacher. Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Elizabeth *** 0.030696 0.037903 0.000526 0.00081 0.000707 Mark1 *** 0.000438 Mark2 *** 0.000551 Brian *** 1.95E-06 3.54E-06 3.94E-06 Thom1 *** Thom2 *** Thom3 *** 8. My school has enough computers. Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Elizabeth *** 0.000472 0.001162 Mark1 *** 0.014139 0.032217 Mark2 *** 0.018151 0.04116 Brian *** 0.013787 5.88E-05 Thom1 *** 0.032623 Thom2 *** 0.00014 Thom3 ***

PAGE 224

213 Table D-4. Continued 13. My school has enough computers I can use during after school hours. Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Elizabeth *** 2.50E-06 0.023361 0.035873 Mark1 *** 0.013094 4.11E-05 0.003394 0.000268 1.63E-06 Mark2 *** 0.011774 Brian *** Thom1 *** 0.017864 Thom2 *** Thom3 *** 16. My school's principal and other administrators think that knowing how to use computers is very important. Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Elizabeth *** 0.000533 Mark1 *** Mark2 *** 0.008086 Brian *** 0.014601 0.025059 0.038432 Thom1 *** Thom2 *** Thom3 *** 18. This year my social studies teacher likes to use computers. Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Elizabeth *** 0.000147 0.000847 Mark1 *** 0.041289 Mark2 *** 0.012716 0.038647 Brian *** 0.01205 0.036309 Thom1 *** 0.000767 Thom2 *** 0.024587 Thom3 ***

PAGE 225

214 Table D-4. Continued 19. Most students at my school think that knowing how to use computers is very important. Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Elizabeth *** Mark1 *** Mark2 *** 0.000141 Brian *** 0.000762 0.000579 0.021304 Thom1 *** Thom2 *** Thom3 *** 20. My parents think that knowing how to use computers is very important. Elizabeth Mark1 Mark2 Brian Thom1 Thom2 Thom3 Elizabeth *** 0.037296 Mark1 *** 0.012544 Mark2 *** 0.042363 0.005035 Brian *** 0.009053 0.009053 Thom1 *** 0.000629 Thom2 *** 0.000629 Thom3 ***

PAGE 226

215 Table D-5. Correlation Between Student Survey Responses r = Pearson product moment correlation coefficient Item Item r 1. I like social studies. 2. I usually make good grades in social studies. 0.624178 1. I like social studies. 3. I like my social studies teacher. 0.484131 2. I usually make good grades in social studies. 3. I like my social studies teacher. 0.358808 6. Computers make learning more interesting. 10. Computers make learning about social studies more interesting. 0.53486

PAGE 227

LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, S., & Confer, B.J. (1998). A partial inquiry influencing beginning teachers’ beliefs toward diversity and democracy. Paper presented at the meeting of College and University Faculty Association of the National Council for the Social Studies, Anaheim, CA. Adler, S.A. (1991). The education of social studies teachers. In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 210-221). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Angell, A.V. (1998). Learning to teach social studies: A case study of belief restructuring. Theory and Research in the Social Education, 26 (4), 509-529. Apple, M. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge. Armento, B.J. (1996). Teaching and learning history. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 485-502). New York: MacMillan Library Reference, USA. Ashby, R., & Lee, P. (1987). Children’s concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 62-87). London: The Falmer Press. Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Barton, K.C. (1996). Narrative simplifications in elementary students’ historical thinking. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 6. Teaching and learning history (pp. 51-83). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Barton, K.C. (1997). History-it can be elementary: An overview of elementary students’ understanding of history. Social Education, 61, 13-16. Barton, K.C., & Levstik, L.S. (1996). “Back when god was around and everything:” Elementary children’s understanding of historical time. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 419-454. 216

PAGE 228

217 Basinger, J. (2000). Teacher education extends its reach: Colleges create programs to help alumni during their first years leading classrooms. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (35). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v46/i35/35a01801.htm Becker, H.J. (1991). How computers are used in United States schools: Basic data from the 1989 I.E.A. Computers in Education survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 385-406. Becker, H.J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 291-321. Becker, H.J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions and professional use and teacher-directed student use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm Berliner, D.C., & Biddle, B.J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myth, fraud and the attack on America’s public schools. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Berson, M.J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in the social studies: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 486-498. Berson, M.J., Berson, I.R., & Ralston, M.E. (1999). Threshing out the myths and facts of Internet safety. Social Educaton, 63, 160-161. Berson, M.J., Lee, J.K., & Stuckart, D.W. (2001). In W.B. Stanley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 209-229). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Blake, C. (1998). Historical empathy: A response to Foster and Yeager. The role of empathy in the development of historical understanding. The International Journal of Social Education, 13 (1), 25-31. Bohan, C.H., & Davis, O.L., Jr. (1998). Historical constructions: How social studies student teachers' historical thinking is reflected in their writing of history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26, 173-197. Bolam, R. (1987). Induction of beginning teachers. In M.J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 745-757). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Booth, M. (1980). A modern world history course and the thinking of adolescent pupils. Educational Review, 32, 245-257.

PAGE 229

218 Booth, M. (1987). Ages and concepts: A critique of the Piagetian approach to history teaching. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 22-38). London: The Falmer Press. Booth, M. (1993). Students’ historical thinking and the national history curriculum in England. Theory and Research in Social Education, 21 (2), pp. 105-127. Borich, G.D. (2000). Effective teaching methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 9-34). New York: Teachers College Press. Bradley, G., & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support and computer anxieties. Educational Psychology, 17 (3), 267-284. Braun, Jr., J.A., & Risinger, C.F. (1999). Introduction: the Internet. In J.A. Braun, Jr., & C.F. Risinger (Eds.), Surfing social studies: The Internet book (pp. 5-8). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Brophy, J., & VanSledright, B. (1997). Teaching and learning history in elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Brownell, M.T., Yeager, E.A., Rennels, M.S., & Riley, T. (1997). Teachers working together: What teacher educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20 (4), 340-359. Brunetti, G.J. (1998). Teacher education: A look at its future. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25 (4), 59-64. Chapman, D.W. (1984). Teacher retention: The test of a model. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 645-658. Chapman, D.W., & Green, M.S. (1986). Teacher retention: A further examination. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 273-279. Cherup, S., & Linklater, L. (2000). Integrating technology into preservice education: A model implemented a one small liberal arts college. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 16 (3), 18-22. Conway, P., & Zhao, Y. (2001, April). From Luddites to designers: Portraits of teachers and technology in political documents. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

PAGE 230

219 Cornett, J.W. (1990). Teacher thinking about curriculum and instruction: A case study of a secondary social studies teacher. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18, 248-273. Crocco M.S. (2001). Leveraging constructivist learning in the social studies classroom: A response to Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee, and Dralle. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss3/currentissues/socialstudies/article2.htm Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. New York: Longman. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (1997, May 21). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=34cuban.h16&keyw0rds=High%2D Tech%20Schools Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Danielson, C. (1999). Mentoring beginning teachers: The case for mentoring. Teaching and Change, 6, 251-257. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53 (6), 4-10. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teaching learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55 (5), 6-11. Davis, M. (1997). Garage cinema and the future of media technology. Communications of the ACM, 40 (2), 43-48. Davis, O.L., Jr. (2001). In pursuit of historical empathy. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 1-12). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Davis, O.L., Jr., & Klages, C.L. (1997). FDR? "He was a president" and "I can't remember back then." The Social Studies, 88, 173-175. Davis, O.L., Jr., Yeager, E.A., & Foster, S.J. (Eds.). (2001). Historical Empathy and perspective taking in the social studies. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

PAGE 231

220 Dawson, K., Bull, G., & Swain, C. (2000). Considerations for the diffusion of technological innovations in social studies teaching and learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28 (4), 587-595. Dawson, K. & Harris, J. (1999). Reaching out: Telecollaboration and social studies. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 12 (1), P1-P4. Dawson, K., Mason, C., Berson, M. & Lee, J. (1999). The Impact project: Promoting powerful social studies teaching and learning through the use of technology. Trends and Issues, Autumn, 21-24. Delcourt, M.A.B., & Kinzie, M.B. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27 (1), 35-41. Dickinson, A.K., & Lee, P.J. (1978). Understanding and research. In A.K. Dickinson, & P.J. Lee (Eds.), History teaching and historical understanding (pp. 94-120). London: Heinemann Educational. Dickinson, A.K., & Lee, P.J. (1984). Making sense of history. In A.K. Dickson, P.J. Lee & P.J. Rogers (Eds.), Learning history (pp. 117-153). London: Heinemann Educational. Diem, R. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28, 493-501. Diem, R.A. (1996). Preparing teachers to use and apply technology: New models for a new era. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2, 711-716. Doppen, F.H. (1999). Modern times: The Industrial Revolution and the concept of time. Middle Level Learning 4, 12-16. Doppen, F.H. (2000). Teaching and learning multiple perspectives: The atomic bomb. The Social Studies, 91, 159-169. Doppen, F.H., & Yeager, E.A. (1998). National versus state curriculum standards for history in the United States: Where will the debate lead us? The Curriculum Journal, 9, 165-175. Downey, M.T., & Levstik, L.S. (1988) Teaching and learning history: The research base. Social Education, 52, 336-342. Downey, M.T., & Levstik, L.S. (1991). Teaching and learning history. In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 400-410). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

PAGE 232

221 Dunn, S., & Ridgway, J. (1991). Naked into the world: IT experiences on a final primary school teaching practice-a second survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 229-240. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Evans-Andris, M. (1995). An examination of computing styles among teachers in elementary schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43 (2), 15-31. Fabos, B., & Young, M.D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69, 217-259. Farber, B.A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Featherstone, H. (1992). Learning from the first years of classroom teaching: The journey in, the journey out. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Field, S.L. (2001). Perspectives and elementary social studies: Practice and promise. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 115-138). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Florida Department of Education (2001). What you need to know to become a certified educator in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Educator Certification. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.TeachInFlorida.com Fontana, L.A. (1997). Online learning communities: Implications for the social studies. In P.H. Martorella (Ed.), Interactive technologies and the social studies (pp. 1-26). Albany: State University of New York Press. Foster, S., Morris, J.W., & Davis, O.L., Jr. (1996). Prospects for teaching historical analysis and interpretation: National curriculum standards for history meet the current history textbook. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11, 367-385. Foster, S.J. (1999). Using historical empathy to excite students about the study of history: Can you empathize with Neville Chamberlain? The Social Studies, 19, 18-24. Foster, S.J. (2001). Historical empathy in theory and practice: Some final thoughts. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 167-181). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

PAGE 233

222 Foster, S.J., Hoge, J.D., & Rosch, R.H. (1999). Thinking aloud about history: Children's and adolescents’ responses to historical photographs. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27, 179-214. Foster, S. J., & Rosch, R. (1997). Teaching World War I from multiple perspectives. Social Education, 61, 429-434. Foster, S.J., & Yeager, E.A. (1998). The role of empathy in the development of historical understanding. The International Journal of Social Education, 13 (1), 1-7. Foster, S. J., & Yeager, E.A. (1999). "You've got to put together the pieces:" English 12 -year-olds encounter and learn from historical evidence. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14, 286-317. Fuller, F.F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226. Furtwengler, C.B. ((1995) Beginning teachers programs: Analysis of state actions during the reform era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3 (3). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://Olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v3n3.html Gibson, S., & Nocente, N. (1999). Computers in social studies education: A report of teachers’ perspectives and students’ attitudes. Computers in the Schools, 15 (2), 73-81. Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548-594). New York: Macmillan Library Reference, USA. Gold, Y., & Roth, R.A. (1993). Teachers managing stress and preventing burnout. London: The Falmer Press. Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospect for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Goodlad, J.I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Grant, S.G. (2001). It's just the facts, or is it? Teachers' practices and students' understandings of history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 29 (1), 65-101. Gordy, L.L., & Pritchard, A.M. (1995). Redirecting our voyage through history: A content analysis of social studies textbooks. Urban Education, 30, 195-218. Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15 (5), 5-12.

PAGE 234

223 Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993) Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261-315. Halford, J.M. (1998). Easing the way for new teachers. Educational Leadership, 55 (5), 33-36. Hallam, R. (1969). Piaget and the teaching of history. Educational Research, 12 (1), 3-12. Handler, M.G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers and Education, 20, 147-156. Harris, J. (1998). Virtual architecture: Designing and directing curriculum-based telecomputing. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Hargreaves, A. (1995). Development and desire: A postmodern perspective. In T.R. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 9-34). New York: Teachers College Press. Healy, J.M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s mind-for better and worse. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hershey, K.H., & Blanchard, P. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Heywood, G., & Norman, P. (1988). Problems of educational innovation: The primary teacher’s response to using the microcomputer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 4, 34-43. Hope, W.C. (1996). It's time to transform social studies teaching. The Social Studies, 87, 149-151. Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W.R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 535-548). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 173-180. Hutchinson, S.A. (1997). Education and grounded theory. In R.R. Sherman, & R.B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (4th ed., pp. 123-140). London: The Falmer Press. International Society for Technology in Education. (1998). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.ISTE.org/standards/index.html

PAGE 235

224 International Society for Technology in Education. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in the digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.ISTE.org/standards/index.html Johnston, M. (1990). Teachers’ backgrounds and beliefs: Influences on learning to teach in the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18, 207-233. Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinkers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32. Keiper, T., Harwood, A. & Larson, B.E. (2000). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of infusing computer technology into social studies instruction. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28, 566-579. Kirkpatrick, H., & Cuban, L. (1998). Should we be worried? What the research says about gender differences in access, use, attitudes, and achievement with computers. Educational Technology, 38 (4), 56-61. Klug, B.J., & Salzman, A. (1991). Formal induction vs. informal mentoring: Comparative effects and outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 241-251. Kozol, J. (1967). Death at an early age. New York: Bantam Books. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: HarperPerennial. Kozol, J. (1995). Amazing grace: The lives of children and the conscience of a nation. New York: HarperPerennial. Kozol, J. (2000). Ordinary resurrections: Children in the years of hope. New York: Crown Publishers. Lawson, H.A. (1992). Beyond the new conception of teacher induction. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 163-172. Lee, J.K. (2000). An analysis of the development of pre-service social studies teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge relating to digital historical resources. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

PAGE 236

225 Lee, P.J. (1978). Explanation and understanding in history. In A.K. Dickinson, & P.J. Lee (Eds.), History teaching and historical understanding (pp. 72-93). London: Heinemann. Lee, P.J., & Ashby, R. (2001). Empathy, perspective taking, and rational understanding. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 21-50). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Leinhardt, G., Stainton, C., & Virji, S.M. (1994). Educational Psychologist, 29 (2), 79-88. Leming, J.S. (1991). Teacher characteristics and social studies education. In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 222-234). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Levstik, L.S. (1995). Narrative constructions: Cultural frames for history. The Social Studies, 83, 113-116. Levstik, L.S. (1997). “Any history is someone’s history”: Listening to multiple voices from the past. Social Education, 61, 48-51. Levstik, L.S. (2001). Crossing the empty spaces: Perspective taking in New Zealand’s adolescents’ understanding of national history. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 69-96). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Levstik, L.S., & Barton, K.C. (1996). “They still use some of their past:” Historical salience in elementary children’s chronological thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 531-576. Levstik, L.S., & Barton, K.C. (1997). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Levstik, L.S., & Pappas, C.C. (1987). Exploring the development of historical understanding. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21 (1), 1-14. Levstik, L.S., & Pappas, C.C. (1992). New directions for studying historical understanding. Theory and Research in Social Education, 20, 369-385. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-596. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers transforming their world and their work. New York: Teachers College.

PAGE 237

226 Lipscomb, G.B. (2001, April). Eighth graders’ impressions of the civil war: Using technology in the history classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Lortie, D.C. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lloyd, B.H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 44, 501-505 Lybarger, M.B. (1991). The historiography of social studies: Retrospect, circumspect, and prospect. In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Marcinkiewicz, H.R. (1993-94). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 220-237. Marcinkiewicz, H.R. (1996). Motivation and teachers' computer use. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Indianapolis, IN. Martorella, P. (1998). Urgent emerging issues related to technology applications in schools. Meridian, 4. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/project/meridian/jan98/feat_4/apps.html Martorella, P., Barton, B., Steelman, J. (1991). Training teachers in interactive video applications. Computers in the Schools, 8, 293-301. Martorella, P.H. (1996). The degathering of society: Implications for technology and educators. NASSP Bulletin, 80, (582), 34-41. Martorella, P.H. (1997). Technology and the social studies-or: Which way to the sleeping giant? Theory and Research in Social Education, 25 (4), 511-514. Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm Mason, C.L., & Carter, A. (1999). The Garbers: Using digital history to recreate a 19 th century family. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 12 (1), 11-14. Mason, C.L., & Gerler, E.R. (1998). Meridian: Inventing an online journal. Social Education, 62 (3), 158-160.

PAGE 238

227 Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merryfield, M.M. (2000). Using electronic technologies to promote equity and cultural diversity in social studies and global education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28, 502-526. Meyers, D.M. (1996). Responses of social studies preservice teachers to a presentational software package: Using the computer to contextualize and recontextualize academic content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Milson, A.J., & Downey, P. (2001). WebQuest: Using Internet resources for cooperative inquiry. Social Education, 65, 144-145. Murmane, R.J., & Olsen, R.J. (1990). The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching. The Jounal of Human Resources, 25, 106-124. National Center for Education Statistics. (March 2001). Digest of education statistics 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (May 2001). Internet access in U. S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for History in the Schools. (1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for History in the Schools. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Retrieved January 19, 2000 from http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/TECH.HTM National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Novak, T.P., & Hoffman, D.L. (1998). Bridging the digital divide: The impact of race on computer access and Internet use. Retrieved April 16, 2001 from http://ecommerce.vanderbilt.edu/papers/race/science.htm Ohler, J. (2000). Art becomes the fourth R. Educational Leadership, 58 (2), 16-19.

PAGE 239

228 Olebe, M., Jackson, A., & Danielson, C. (1999). Investing in beginning teachers: The California model. Educational Leadership, 56 (8), 41-44. Oliver, R. (1994). Factors influencing beginning teachers’ uptake of computers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (1), 71-89. Olivier, T.A., & Shapiro, F. (1993). Self-efficacy and computers. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20 (3), 81-85. Olson, J. (2000). Trojan horse or teacher’s pet? Computers and the culture of the school. Journal of Curriculum Studies. Retrieved December 9, 2000 from http://www.ed.iuic.edu/jcs/Vol%2032/OLSON.html Olson, L. (2000). Finding and keeping competent teachers. In Education Week (Eds.), Quality Counts 2000: Who should teach? The states decide. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/ Onosko, J. (1989). Comparing teachers’ thinking about promoting students’ thinking. Theory and Research in Social Education, 17, 174-195. Onosko, J.J. (1990). Comparing teachers’ instruction to promote students’ thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 443-461. Onosko, J.J. (1992). Exploring the thinking of thoughtful teachers. Educational Leadership, 49 (7), 40-43. Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 63, 45-62. Owens, W.T. (1997). The challenges of teaching social studies methods to preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 88, 113-120. Owens, W.T. (1999). Preservice teachers’ feedback about the Internet and the implications for social studies educators. The Social Studies, 90, 133-140. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine. Technology Review, 96 (5), 28-37. Perelman, L.J. (1992). School’s out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of education. New York, NY: William Marrow and Company, Inc. Pittman, J., & McLaughlin, B. (2000). Make cyberspace safe for children. Educational Leadership 57 (6), 68-71. Portal, C. (1987). Empathy as an objective for history teaching. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 39-61). London: The Falmer Press. Postman, N. (1995). Virtual students, digital classrooms. The Nation, 261 (11), 377-381. Postman, N. (2000). Will our children only inherit the wind? Theory and Research in Social Education, 28 (4), 580-586.

PAGE 240

229 Rice, M.L., & Wilson, E.K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90 (1), 28-33. Riley, K.L. (2001). The Holocaust and historical empathy: The politics of understanding. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 139-166). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Risinger, C.F. (1998). Separating wheat from chaff: Why dirty pictures are not the real dilemma in using the Internet to teach social studies. Social Education, 62, 148-150. Risinger, C.F. (1999). Teaching history . In J.A. Braun, Jr., & C.F. Risinger (Eds.), Surfing social studies: The Internet book (pp. 27-32). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Ritchie, D. (1996). The administrative role in the integration of technology. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (58), 42-52. Robinson, G.W. (1998). New teacher induction: A study of selected new teacher induction models and common practices. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed). New York: The Free Press. Ross, E.W. (2000). The promise and perils of E-learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28, 482-491. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College. Sarason, S.B. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.” New York: Teachers College. Saye, J.W. (2000). Maximizing technology's potential for facilitating educational change: A response to Sherman and Hicks. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (2). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss2/currentissues/socialstudies/article2.htm Saye, J.W. & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multi-media-supported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27 (4), 472-504. Scheurman, G. (1998). Revisiting Lexington Green. Social Education, 62 (1), 10-18. Schofield, J.W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 241

230 Schug, M.C., Todd, R.J., & Beery, R. (1984). Why kids don't like social studies. Social Education 48, 382-387. Scott, T.J., & O'Sullivan, M. (2000). The internet and information literacy: Taking the first step toward technology education in the social studies. The Social Studies, 91 (3), 121-129. Seixas, P. (1994). Students' understanding of historical significance. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22, 281-304. Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding. In D.R. Olson, & N. Torrance, (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 765-783). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Seixas, P. (1997). Mapping the terrain of historical significance. Social Education, 61, 22-27. Serpell, Z. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: A review of the literature. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443 783) Shaughnessy, J.M., & Haladyna, T.M. (1985). Research on student attitude toward social studies. Social Education, 49, 692-695. Shemilt, D. (1987). Adolescent ideas about evidence and methodology in history. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 39-61). London: The Falmer Press. Sherman, G., & Hicks, D. (2000). Using a historic site to develop virtual reality-enhanced web-based instructional materials: Learning to use technology as a partner in the classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (2). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss2/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm Short, R.J., & Short, P.M. (1989). Teacher beliefs, perceptions of behavior problems and intervention preferences. Journal of Social Studies Research, 13 (2), 28-33. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in education. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Eduational Review, 57, 1-22. Sizer, T.R., & Sizer, N.F. (1999). The students are watching: Schools and the moral contract. Boston: Beacon Press.

PAGE 242

231 Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999). Constructivism in the classroom: If I teach this way, am I doing my job? Leading and Learning with Technology, 27, 6-17. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Stephens, G.E. (2000). An analysis of the instructional use of technological tools by field-based teachers. Journal of Computing in Education, 16 (3), 28-32. Strudler, N.B, McKinney, M.O., & Jones, W.P. (1999). First-year teachers’ use of technology: Preparation, expectations and realities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 115-130. Swain, C.R., Bridges, D.L., & Hresko, W.P. (1996). The World Wide Web: A classroom adventure. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32 (2), 82-88. Taylor, M. (2000). The Florida Academies for Excellence in Teaching Grant: The Suncoast Academy for Teacher Induction. A review of the literature and its implications for teacher induction programs. Largo, FL: Pinellas County Schools. Technology Counts 2001: The new divides. (2001, May 12). Education Week. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc01/ Tell, G. (2000). The I-generation-from toddlers to teenagers: A conversation with Jane M. Healy. Educational Leadership, 58 (2), 8-13. Tellez, K. (1992). Mentors by choice, not design: Help-seeking by beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 214-221. Thornton, S.J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 4237-248). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Thornton, S.J., & Vukelich, R. (1988). Effects of children’s understanding of time concepts on historical understanding. Theory and Research in Social Education, 16, 69-82. United States Department of Education. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act (H.R. 1804). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/intro.html VanSledright, B., & Brophy, J. (1992). Storytelling, imagination, and fanciful elaboration in children’s historical reconstructions. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 837-859. VanSledright, B.A. (1995). “I don’t remember-the ideas are all jumbled in my head:” 8 th graders’ reconstructions of colonial American history. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10, 317-345.

PAGE 243

232 VanSledright, B.A. (1996). Studying colonization in the eighth grade: What can it teach us about the learning context of current reforms? Theory and Research in Social Education, 24, 107-145. VanSledright, B.A. (2001). From empathic regard to self-understanding, im/positionality, empathy, and historical contextualization. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 51-68). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Wesley, E.B. (1942). Teaching the social studies. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company. White, C. (1996). Relevant social studies education: Integrating technology and constructivism. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (1), 69-76. White, C. (1999). Transforming social studies education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd. White, C.S. (1997). Bringing preservice teachers online. In P.H. Martorella (Ed.), Interactive technologies and the social studies (pp. 27-56). Albany: State University of New York Press. White, C.S., & Hubbard, G. (1988). Computers and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Wiebe, J.H., Taylor, H.G., & Thomas, L.G. (2000). The National Educational Technology Standards for PK-12 students. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 16 (3), 12-17. Willis, E.M. (1997). Technology: Integrated into, not added onto, the curriculum experiences in pre-service teacher education. Computers in the Schools, 15, 141-153. Willis, J. (1993). What conditions encourage technology use? It depends on the context. Computers in the Schools, 9 (4), 13-32. Wilson, E.K., Konopak, B.C., & Readance, J.E. (1994). Preservice teachers in secondary social studies: Examining conceptions and practices. Theory and Research in Social Education, 12, 364-379. Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappan International, 80, 488. Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kwin9903.htm Wineburg, S.S. (1991a). Historical problem solving: A study of cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 73-87.

PAGE 244

233 Wineburg, S.S. (1991b). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519. Wineburg, S.S., & Wilson, S.M. (1988). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 50-58. Wineburg, S.S., & Wilson. S.M. (1991). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. The History Teacher, 24, 395-412. Yeager, E.A., & Davis, O.L., Jr. (1995). Between campus and classroom: Secondary student-teachers' thinking about historical texts. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29 (1), 1-8. Yeager, E.A., & Davis, O.L., Jr. (1996). Classroom teachers' thinking about historical texts: An exploratory study. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24, 146-166. Yeager, E.A., & Doppen, F.H. (2001). Teaching and learning multiple perspectives on the use of the atomic bomb: Historical empathy in the secondary classroom. In L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 97-114). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Yeager, E.A., & Foster, S.J. (2001). The role of empathy in the development of historical understanding. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E.A. Yeager, & S.J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 13-20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Yeager, E.A., Foster, S.J., Maley, S.D., Anderson, T., & Morris, J.W. (1999). Harry Truman and the atomic bomb: A high school classroom study in historical empathy. The Iowa Council for the Social Studies Journal, 10 (1), 53-63. Yeager, E.A., & Wilson, E.K. (1997). Teaching historical thinking in the social studies methods course: A case study. The Social Studies, 88, 121-126. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks,CA: SAGE Publications. Zeichner, K.M., & Gore, J.M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W.B. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Zhao, Y. (2001, April). What exemplary technology-using teachers know and use: Emperical evidence. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

PAGE 245

234 Zhao, Y., & Kendall, C. (2001, April). Educational technology standards for teachers: issues of validity, reliability, and feasibility. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

PAGE 246

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Frans H. Doppen was born in Marienvelde, the Netherlands. He attended high school in Groenlo, where he completed the Atheneum in 1975. After earning his Kandidaats degree in history at the University of Utrecht in 1979, he participated in an exchange program with the University of Florida. After receiving his Doctorandus degree in modern history in 1982, he immigrated to the United States in 1984. Since then he has been a social studies teacher in the public schools of Florida. In 1995 he returned to graduate school at the University of Florida, where in 1998 he earned his Specialist degree in educational leadership. Subsequently, he continued course work to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy degree in social studies education. He is currently a University School Assistant Professor at the P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School in the College of Education at the University of Florida. 235