To Test or Not to Test?: The Role of Testing in Elementary Social Studies A Collaborative Study Conducted by NCPSSE and SCPSSE

Self Cite

Using data from the Survey of the Status of Social Studies ( S4), this article describes the instructional decisions and practices of elementary teachers in two neighboring states, one where social studies is tested and another where it is not. We define students’ opportunity to learn within these states as a composite of three variables: time allocations for social studies (teacher reported instructional time), methods for teaching social studies (teacher reported instructional strategies), and content focus (teacher reported content emphases and state-mandated curriculum standards). Our guiding research question for this study was: To what extent do teachers’ perceptions of elementary school social studies instructional practices and content vary between two states with different testing policies for social studies? Initial findings revealed notable differences that could not be explained by testing policies alone. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory content analysis of the elementary social studies curricula in these neighboring states. We uncovered curricular differences that suggest that state standards influence teachers’ decisions in both what and how they choose to teach social studies. However, there were curriculum differences that did not align with S4 instructional methods and content focus output. Thus, we concluded that other factors apart from the curriculum guide teachers’ decision-making. Results provided evidence that students have different opportunities to learn based on (1) state testing policies in social studies, (2) curriculum content, (3) how social studies is delivered (e.g., stand-alone versus integration), and (4) time allocated to social studies. We concluded that these variables constrict or expand students’ opportunity to learn social studies and may influence teachers’ pedagogical and content choices in elementary social studies.

Section: Interpretations and Implicationssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Testing As a Determinant Of What Is Learnedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Instructional Practices of Elementary Social Studies Teachers in North and South Carolina

Heafner

Lipscomb

Fitchett

2014

Self Cite

“…Teachers frequently rotated social studies instruction with science content, another subject area that is not included on standardized testing at the elementary level (Heafner et al, 2007). Results from a direct comparison between a state that does not conduct standardized testing in elementary social studies (North Carolina) and a state that does (South Carolina) indicated social studies is taught less and for less time in the non-tested state (Heafner, Lipscomb, & Rock, 2006). Hence, teachers teach what is tested.…”

Section: The Status Of Social Studies In Elementary Classroomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where is the Content?: Elementary Social Studies in Preservice Field Experiences

Hawkman

Castro

Bennett

et al. 2015

Anecdotal evidence has long lamented the status of social studies in elementary classrooms as observed by preservice teachers. As standardized testing has risen for mathematics and language arts, social studies has been pushed aside. In the aftermath of accountability legislation such as No Child Left Behind, research indicates that social studies is less visible in elementary classrooms due to an instructional focus on tested content areas (e.g. math, language arts, reading). In this study, approximately 90 elementary preservice teachers enrolled in a social studies methods course responded to a survey and indicated the frequency and quality of lessons they observed over the course of a single semester. Findings report that preservice elementary teachers witnessed few, if any, lessons in social studies in the elementary classroom. Implications for teacher education are discussed.

“…The large-scale quantitative literature in social studies education is thin at best (Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014a;Grant & Salinas, 2008;Heafner, Fitchett, & Knowles, 2016). Still, over the past decade and a half, the literature base in elementary social studies education (Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014a, 2014bHeafner, Lipscomb, & Rock, 2006;, civics education (Niemi & Junn, 2005;Torney-Purta & Amadeo, 2012;Torney-Purta & Richardson, 2003), and U.S. history education (Fitchett & Heafner, 2013;Heafner & Fitchett, 2015;Smith & Nemi, 2001) has been growing. These studies have utilized nationally representative data sets including, but not limited to, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) exams and the School and Staffing Survey (Fitchett & Heafner, 2013;Heafner & Fitchett, 2015;Niemi & Junn, 2005;Smith & Niemi, 2001) to investigate trends in student and teacher learning across the social studies disciplines (e.g., U.S. history, Civics, and Economics).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. history state assessments, discourse demands, and English Learners’ achievement: Evidence for the importance of reading and writing instruction in U.S. history for English Learners

Miller

2018

States are beginning to restructure their U.S. history assessments from previous multiple-choice based assessments to include written-response questions that have higher levels of academic language demands. These higher-order thinking and analytical items pose challenges to linguistically and culturally diverse students. The purpose of the current study is to investigate how the restructuring of a U.S. history state assessment is associated with English Learners’ (ELs) achievement over time. The author incorporates 3 years of data from the Tennessee Department of Education, and utilizes multi-level modeling (Hierarchical Linear Modeling) to examine and compare the association between school percentage ELs and U.S. history achievement on Tennessee's (TN) U.S. history state assessment. Findings indicate that the restructuring of the TN U.S. history state assessment in the 2015–16 school year is significantly and inversely associated with ELs’ achievement on this assessment. At the same time, there are no significant associations for the 2012–13 and the 2013–14 school years. This suggests a negative inverse association between the restructuring of the TN U.S. history state assessment and ELs’ performance. In addition, this suggests that ELs’ lack of U.S. history reading and writing ability may have contributed to the negative association.