Advertisement

Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 23–32 | Cite as

The new social studies, textbooks, and reform in social studies

  • James P. Shaver
Article

Abstract

The New Social Studies curriculum development movement was short-lived, in part because project staff were not sensitive to the realities of the educational context within which their materials and methods would be used. Although textbook-based recitation persists in social studies classrooms, textbooks are not a ready mechanism for reform. Among the reasons are the institutional constraints on publishers and the difficulty in effecting curricular change without appropriate teacher preparation and modifications in the educational environment.

Keywords

Social Study Local School District Textbook Publisher Curriculum Project Social Study Curriculum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bruner, J. S. (1960).The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cuban, L. (1991). History of teaching in sociaol studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.),Handbook on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 197–209). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Dow, P. B. (1975). MACOS revisited: A commentary on the most frequently asked questions about Man: A Course of Study.Social Education, 39(6), 388, 393–396.Google Scholar
  4. Fenton, E., & Good, J. M. (1965). Project Social Studies: A progress report.Social Education, 29(4), 206–208.Google Scholar
  5. Fetsko, W. (1979). Textbooks and the new social studies.The Social Studies, 70(2), 51–55.Google Scholar
  6. Goodlad, J. I. (1984).A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Gross, R. E. (1977). The status of the social studies in the public schools of the United States: Facts and impressions of a national survey.Social Education, 41(3), 194–205.Google Scholar
  8. Haas, J. D. (1977).The era of the New Social Studies. Boulder: Social Science Education Consortium.Google Scholar
  9. Hahn, C. L. (1985). The status of the social studies in the public schools of the United States: Another look.Social Education, 49(3), 220–223.Google Scholar
  10. Hertzberg, H. W. (1981).Social studies reform: 1880–1980. Boulder: Social Science Education Consortium.Google Scholar
  11. Jenness, D. (1990_.Making sense of social studies. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Marker, G. W. (1980). Why schools abandon “new social studies” materials.Theory and Research in Social Education, 7(4), 35–57).Google Scholar
  13. Oliver, D. W., & Shaver, J. P. (1974).Teaching public issues in the high school. Logan: Utah State University Press (first published in 1966).Google Scholar
  14. Sanders, N. M., & Tanck, M. L. (1970). A critical appraisal of twenty-six national social studies projects.Social Education, 34(4), 383–388.Google Scholar
  15. Schneider, D. O., & Van Sickle, R. L. (1979). The status of the social studies: The publishers’ perspective.Social Education, 43, 461–465.Google Scholar
  16. Sewall, G. T. (1988). American history textbooks: Where do we go from here?Phi Delta Kappan, 69 552–558.Google Scholar
  17. Shaver, J. P. (1967). Social studies: The need for redefinition.Social Education, 1967,31(7), 588–596.Google Scholar
  18. Shaver, J. P. (1979, November).The NSF studies of status of pre-collegiate education: Implications for social studies professors and curriculum developers. Paper presented to a College and University Faculty Assembly symposium, The NSF and Rand Reports: Implications for Social Studies, at the annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, Portland, Oregon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 178446)Google Scholar
  19. Shaver, J. P. (1986). Reflections on citizenship education and traditional social studies programs.Georgia Social Science Journal, 17 (3), 1–15.Google Scholar
  20. Shaver, J. P. (1989). Lessons from the past: The future of an issues-centered social studies cirriculum.The Social Studies, 80(5), 192–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shaver, J. P., Davis, O. L., & Helburn, S. W. (1979). The status of social studies education: Impressions from three NSF studies.Social Education, 43(2), 150–153.Google Scholar
  22. Shaver, J. P., Davis, O. L., & Helburn, S. W. (1979). The status of social studies education: Impressions from three NSF studies.Social Education, 43(2), 150–153.Google Scholar
  23. Shaver, J. P., Davis, O. L., & Helburn, S. W. (1980). An interpretive report on the status of precollege social studies education based on three NSF-funded studies. InWhat are the needs in precollege science, mathematics, and social science education? Views from the field (pp. 3–18). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Shaver, J. P., & Larkins, A. G. (1973).The analysis of public issues program. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988).The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Taylor, B. L., & Groom, T. L. (1971).Social studies education projects: An ASCD index. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  27. Tyson-Bernstein, H., & Woodward, A. (1986). The great textbook machine and prospects for reform.Social Education, 50(1), 41–45.Google Scholar
  28. White, J. J. (1988). Searching for substantial knowledge in social studies texts.Theory and Research in Social Education, 16(2), 160–163.Google Scholar
  29. Wiley, K. B. (1977).The status of pre-college science, mathematics, and social science education: 1955–1975. Vol. III: Social science education. Boulder: Social Science Education Consortium.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • James P. Shaver
    • 1
  1. 1.College of EducationUtah State UniversityLogan

Personalised recommendations