www.sosyalbilgiler.org

Journal of Social Studies Education Research

Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi

2015: 6(2), 1-17

Preserving Social Studies as Core Curricula in an Era of Common Core

Reform

David W. Denton1 & Cindy Sink2

Abstract

Education reform over the last two decades has changed perceptions of core curricula. Although social studies

has traditionally been part of the core, emphasis on standards-based teaching and learning, along with elaborate

accountability schemes, is causing unbalanced treatment of subjects. While the research literature indicates teachers

are spending less time on social studies, perceptions about the subject are more complicated. Some educators accept

the value of social studies knowledge and skills, while others see it as an auxiliary subject for supporting test

achievement. Integration is one way elementary school teachers reconcile the need to focus on tested disciplines, while

holding to traditional notions of the core curricula. Results from a case study involving elementary teachers show

integration as the preferred method for teaching social studies. Participants, however, also indicated they were unable

to achieve effective integration due to time constraints, limited training, and inadequate curricular resources. The

trajectory of standards-based reform suggests educators will continue to encounter obstacles that impede integration.

Systematic change that preserves the place of social studies as part of the core curricula is unlikely. Nevertheless,

adoption of Common Core standards presents an opportunity for educators to reexamine the merits of social studies

integration.

Keywords: case study, Common Core, core curricula, elementary, integration, social studies

Introduction

Traditionally, subject areas considered part of the core curricula have included English,

mathematics, science, and social studies (Tyler, 2004). However, the reality of high-stakes

testing since 2001 has elevated literacy and mathematics above other subjects. For example, the

Center on Education Policy (2007) reports 62% of elementary schools have increased time for

literacy and math, while simultaneously reducing time in non-tested subjects by up to 145

minutes per week. Research by Heafner and Fitchett (2012) corroborate this trend, indicating

time for social studies has decreased in grades three through five, by up to 60 minutes per week.

Nevertheless, despite evidence to the contrary, Holloway and Chiodo (2009) assert that social

studies concepts are taught, just not in the “allotted portion of time” normally assigned to

1 Assistant Professor, Seattle Pacific University, dentod@spu.edu
2 Clinical Instructor, Seattle Pacific University, sinkc@spu.edu

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

departmentalized planning (p. 237). Rather, according to Holloway and Chiodo, elementary

school teachers are teaching social studies concepts by integrating them with reading, language

arts, mathematics, and other disciplines. As an alternative to both perspectives, Houser (1995)

and Bisland (2012) claim elementary teachers were neglecting social studies well before the era

of standardized testing. Reasons cited by Houser and Bisland for diminished attention include

pressure to cover other content, faulty teacher preparation, lack of administrative support, and

dearth of content knowledge among elementary teachers.

Though diminished attention to social studies in elementary grades is lamentable, it could

be argued the problem is a symptom of the way educators prioritize what students should learn,

and to what level of precision. The history of education is full of examples showing how each

new generation of educator contends with the question, What knowledge is most worth

learning?, just as Herbert Spencer did in 1854. For Spencer, the answer was scientific

knowledge. Yet if the content of standardized test items in the current era is any indication, the

knowledge most worth learning today is subject matter required for mastering basic literacy and

mathematics. Standardized tests reveal priorities about what matters. Students are tested in

reading, writing, and math, suggesting disintegration of disciplines through assessment. It can be

further argued that attempts to improve achievement through high-stakes testing has resulted in

greater separation between subjects, contrary to principles of integration, which some suggest

promote critical thinking skills such as transfer, error detection, and concept learning (Haskell,

2000; Thomas, 2007).

Shifting priorities through emphasis on test achievement has brought the place of social

studies within the core curricula into question. It has also required creative solutions by

elementary teachers for reconciling their beliefs about social studies and how to teach in a

system that may neglect, dismiss, or marginalize non-tested disciplines. One way primary grade

teachers manage this tension is through integration (Holloway & Chiodo, 2009; Pederson, 2007).

However, integration means different things to different people, as indicated by the various

definitions presented over the years (Czerniak, Weber, Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999).

Integration and Integrated Curricula

Banks (1993) defines integration as “the extent to which teachers use examples, data, and

information from a variety of cultures and groups to illustrate the key concepts, principles,

generalizations, and theories in their subject area or discipline” (p. 25). Alternatively, Parker

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

(2005) defines integration as an “approach that purposefully draws together knowledge,

perspectives, and methods of inquiry from more than one discipline to develop a more powerful

understanding of a central idea, issue, person, or event” (pp. 452-453). Similarly, Badley (2009)

defines integration as “curriculum or instruction that combines, draws upon or encourages

students to see connections between the contents of two or more academic disciplines” (p. 115).

Lastly, Beane (1995) defines integration as

not simply an organizational device requiring cosmetic changes or realignments in lesson

plans across various subject areas… it is a way of thinking about what schools are for…

about the uses of knowledge… curriculum integration is the search for self- and social

meaning (p. 616).

The way integrated curricula is conceived also varies. For example, Beane (1995)

describes integrated curricula as design of learning activities around projects that depend on a

variety of disciplines for addressing personally and socially meaningful problems. Alternatively,

Hinde (2005) is less theoretical, describing integrated curricula with principles of effective

practice, such as 1) activities aligned with lesson objectives, 2) lessons planned so they preserve

the integrity of social studies content, 3) learning segments designed to account for prior

knowledge and potential misconceptions, and 4) use of authentic knowledge and skills that

transfer between disciplines. Czerniak et al. (1999) provide more detail, citing several

professional organizations for a comprehensive conception of integrated curricula, but again a

conception that exemplifies effective practice. According to Czerniak et al., integrated curricula

1) maintains content integrity while facilitating connections between disciplines, 2) fosters

collaboration, 3) promotes democracy, 4) deploys multiple learning strategies, 5) respects diverse

ideas, 6) uses a variety of sources including experimentation, 7) applies symbol systems for

representing, and 8) uses different types of assessments.

Examples of integrated lessons and activities in elementary classrooms take many forms.

Integration results as students or teachers select problems or controversial issues to resolve

(Hinde, 2005). For example, grade three students investigate the effects of immigration on

communities through biography, demographic analysis, and geography. Alternatively, traditional

units may be revised around a theme (Wraga, 1993). For example, grade two students learn about

their community by identifying recreational activities, their geographic location and distance

from school, and paint pictures and write poems to symbolize what the activities mean to them.

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

Another variation on the theme approach is to merge disciplines so students construct their own

generalizations about phenomenon (Parker, 2005), such as grade four students concluding that

culture is shaped by environment. Another example, one that retains traditional subject divisions,

is sequencing. Sequencing includes activities from different disciplines organized to show

relationships. For example, a grade five class learning about continents and oceans in social

studies, simultaneously studies oceanography during science, and reads Island of the Blue

Dolphins in language arts (Hinde, 2005).

Effects of Integration on Student Learning

Educators at the elementary level identify integration as a way to improve learning

(Bisland, 2012; Hinde, 2005) even though systematic empirical analyses showing the effects of

integration are rare (Ellis & Fouts, 2001). Nevertheless, some research exists which continues to

persuade educators of the positive effects of integration. For example, Vars (1997) summarized

the effects of curriculum integration on student learning and concluded that it was equivalent,

and often better, in comparison to conventional departmentalized programs. Ellis and Fouts

(2001), however, cautioned that the analysis by Vars is more of a synthesis, rather than a critical

evaluation of empirical evidence and they also suggest that too few studies exist for any kind of

meaningful analysis. Hartzler (2000), however, conducted a meta-analysis of integrated

curriculum programs and found they had a positive effect on student performance on state tests

and program developed assessments. Hartzler proposed that teachers taking an integrated

approach need not fear student failure or declining test scores. In summary, while systematic

empirical research on the effects of curriculum integration is limited, integration as an approach

to instructional design is routinely associated with higher-level thinking skills, unified sense of

process, real-world application, heightened motivation, and depth of understanding (Ellis &

Fouts, 2001; Vars, 1991).

However, integration in an era of common core reform may also be used as a

diversionary phrase, satisfying traditional notions of the core curricula, but in reality freeing

educators to focus their efforts on improving test achievement. While the use of integration for

deflection may seem implausible, there is precedence for observing gaps between what teachers

say they believe about instruction and what they actually practice in the classroom, and research

suggests this is the case for some social studies educators. For example, Bailey, Shaw, and

Hollifield (2006) found that primary teachers reported preferring inquiry-based instruction, but

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

the same teachers also reported using it infrequently. Similarly, Faulkner and Cook (2006)

surveyed middle school teachers and found they reported using a wide array of instructional

practices, while simultaneously indicating they relied mostly on discussion, lecture, and

worksheets. Similar discrepancies between what teachers say they prefer and what they actually

do have been found by Bolinger and Warren (2007) and Leming, Ellington and Schug (2006).

Elementary teachers who claim integration as a method for making time for social studies

in an era of standards-based change are equally vulnerable to saying one thing and doing another.

Some reasons for this are that effective integration requires comprehensive understanding of

multiple subjects, with insight about how and when subjects relate, along with opportunities to

plan integrated lessons. Integration is also contrary to typical subject matter divisions, which

ease lesson planning and assessment, enabling teachers to handle objectives and activities as

discrete elements. Even when integration is used, it may be superficial since teachers have to

contend with pressure to raise and maintain test scores (Winstead, 2011). In addition, not unlike

other educational interventions, professional training and curricular resources may be lacking,

diminishing opportunities for teachers to integrate efficiently (Pederson, 2007).

Obstacles to Effective Integration

Time is perhaps the most significant obstacle teachers at the elementary encounter as they

attempt to teach social studies, while simultaneously attending to three other major subject areas

(Bisland, 2012). There is no shortage of studies indicating issues with time. Along with findings

reported by the Center on Education Policy (2007) and Heafner and Fitchett (2012), VanFossen

(2005) provides further evidence social studies teaching is becoming increasingly marginalized

across kindergarten to grade five. Similar to previous research, VanFossen cites lack of

administrative support, lack of pressure to perform on a state-wide social studies assessment, and

lack of clear understanding of the goals of social studies learning. Yet, a more troubling finding

reported by VanFossen is less than one in three elementary teachers associated social studies

with its foremost purpose, citizenship education.

While time is readily quantifiable, perceptions of the importance of social studies are

more difficult to measure, but they are also indicative of the status of social studies as a

diminished component of the core curricula. For example, Lintner (2006) surveyed elementary

principals and found they ranked social studies sixth in importance, out of nine subjects, behind

science and before physical education. Lintner also reported some principals valuing social

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

studies for its focus on other cultures and global citizenship, yet still more principals viewed

social studies as a supplement for enhancing reading and writing. Similarly, Gibson (2012) found

that some educators ranked reading, writing, and math above social studies, along with teachers

reporting they struggled to understand the purpose of teaching social studies concepts, such as

awareness of other cultures and citizenship. Vogler (2011) reported similar results, indicating

that teachers integrated information such as historical facts, rather than concepts. One shared

conclusion from this research is that effective social studies education requires more than just

time. It requires continuous training and curricular resources to assist concept teaching through

effective practices such as inquiry-based activities and reflective examination (Bisland, 2012).

Not the least of these requirements is emphasis on the goals and mission of social studies, in

particular citizenship education.

Integration to Preserve Social Studies as Part of the Core

Excluding significant changes to the trajectory of standards-based reform, one solution

for managing non-tested subjects is to rely on the promise of content integration. However, as

previously noted, empirical studies testing the effects of integration on student learning shows

mixed results (Hinde, 2005). Nevertheless, Vars (1991) contends that students involved in

integrative or interdisciplinary studies perform as well as students who approached curricula in

traditional ways. Alternatively, Schug and Cross (1998) argue that keeping subjects separate and

teaching through direct instruction has a greater impact on student achievement. Since results

compiled by Vars and Schug and Cross more than a decade ago, research dealing with

integration has increased. However, the literature is somewhat confined by the number of

descriptive studies across a dispersed number of subjects, such as integrating social studies with

technology (Maloy, Poirier, Smith, & Edwards, 2010); science (Singletary & Miller, 2009);

mathematics (Kinniburgh & Bryd, 2008); visual arts (Lucey & Laney, 2009); and literacy

(MacPhee & Whitecotton, 2011). One reason for the dearth of empirical studies is that

integration is challenging to describe, hard to implement, and even more difficult to measure

(Hinde, 2005).

Nevertheless, standards-based reform has fueled consistent interest in integrating social

studies in an era of standardized testing and accountability. For example, searching the

Educational Research Information Center database for peer reviewed articles using the terms

standards, integration, and social studies produces more than 30 results. However, growth in the

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

literature dealing with Common Core reform and social studies appears to be relatively

undeveloped. For example, searching the same database for Common Core and integration

produces 10 results, but only a few of these studies deal with social studies. For example, Berson

and Berson (2013) have written on the connection between social studies and Common Core by

linking literacy skills with adoption of multiple perspectives. In addition, Kenna and Russell

(2015) have investigated changes in secondary social studies teachers’ instructional practices as a

result of adopting Common Core standards. The articles by Berson and Berson and Kenna and

Russell are likely the first of many which will make connections between Common Core and

social studies knowledge and skills.

The brief analysis of literature covering obstacles to integration and potential for

integration to promote social studies within elementary classrooms shows levels of underlying

complexity. Some of these complexities include allocation of time, prioritization of tested

subjects, and training and resources for teaching integrated lessons. In addition, adoption of

Common Core standards in many states has added another layer of uncertainty. While studies

exist showing the trajectory of social studies in an era of standards-based change, there are few

studies investigating integration as a way to reinvigorate social studies education. Additional

information is needed for reexamining integration as a possible strategy for maintaining, or even

improving, the place of social studies as part of the core curricula. The study that follows

attempts to addresses a few of these gaps by reexamining time devoted to social studies

instruction, perceptions of integration as an approach to social studies instruction, curricula used

for integration, and available resources and training for planning and deploying integrated

lessons. Although information was gathered using case study procedures, focused on a

convenience sample of participants, results provide helpful points of departure for further

investigation.

Methods and Results

The study was divided into exploratory and confirmatory phases, according to procedures

outlined by Creswell and Clark (2007), with the purpose of validating trends found in current

literature, along with identifying new questions for investigation. The exploratory phase included

a convenience sample of 11 student teachers earning endorsements in elementary education.

Student teachers observed their mentor teachers for several weeks, and responded to open-ended

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

questions about the amount of instruction occurring in social studies and other subjects, and also

the type of curricula mentor teachers used for social studies instruction.

Results of the exploratory phase indicated student teachers observing between 0 and 90

minutes of social studies instruction per week, with an average of 60 minutes. These results

confirm findings from other studies on the subject of time dedicated to social studies instruction

(see Bisland, 2012; McGuire, 2007; National Council for the Social Studies, 2008; Pederson,

2007). Another result was absence of dedicated social studies curricula for social studies

instruction. Rather, three students observed use of social skills and literacy curricula, and what

they identified as integration of social studies concepts. For example, one student teacher

reported the mentor had just started using WorldScapes, a literacy program including various

types of texts (Hand to Mind, 2013) for teaching social studies. Two other student teachers

observed mentors using Second Step and Steps to Respect, curricula for teaching social emotional

knowledge and skills (Committee for Children, 2012). The majority of observations made by

student teachers, however, indicated their mentors were not teaching social studies, or that

mentors were integrating social studies with other subjects.

Information gathered from student teachers about how their mentors handled social

studies in the exploratory phase prompted questions around integration. Specifically, whether

elementary teachers in the convenience sample taught social studies through integration, the

kinds of curricula used for integration, and whether teachers had access to resources and training

for effective integration.

Data was collected from 14 elementary school teachers using a survey with 14 items,

scaled from 1 – strongly agree to 5 – strongly disagree, and two open-ended questions. A

different group of 14 student teachers, separate from the exploratory phase, requested that their

mentor teachers complete the survey over the course of several weeks. Participating mentors who

completed the survey worked in five districts around a large metropolitan area. Schools where

teachers were employed ranged from 550 to 270 students, with varying rates of socio-economic

status as indicated by receipt of free or reduced price meals between 88 and 10 percent.

Similar to results found in the exploratory phase, participating teachers identified

integration as their preferred method for teaching social studies content (M = 1.50). Participants

also reported possessing knowledge and skills required for integration (M = 1.64) and that

students were being instructed in social studies-specific concepts as well as fields such as

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

economics and geography (M = 1.97). Teachers were neutral (M = 3.50) when asked whether

they had enough time to plan integrated lessons and also indicated they would like to learn more

strategies for integrating social studies with tested subjects (M = 2.43). On a similar item,

teachers indicated they spent more time teaching basic skills in comparison to social studies

subject matter (M = 2.29). Teachers were somewhat positive when asked if they would spend

more time on social studies if they were provided additional training (M = 2.67). However,

teachers were somewhat neutral when asked if they would spend more time on social studies if

their district showed more leadership in the area of social studies instruction (M = 2.86). Figure 1

summarizes results from the survey.

Figure 1. Survey results from fourteen elementary school teaches about their use of integration

for teaching social studies.

On open-ended responses, teachers indicated some cohesiveness with the kind of

curricula used for teaching social studies. Five teachers reported using Storypath, an integrative

approach based on storytelling (Interact, 2013), while four others indicated using a textbook, and

three reported using Social Studies Alive. One teacher reported using integration and another

teacher simply reported other. Unlike results from the exploratory phase, no teachers reported

using Second Steps or Steps to Respect as substitutes for social studies curricula. Teachers

indicated variation in school support in terms of integration. For example, one teacher wrote,

“There are no resources or curricula to teach social studies in my district - I try to integrate it

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Prefer
Integration

Knowledge
and skill for
integration

Teach
concepts and

fields

Time to plan
integrated

lessons

Strategies for
integration

Basic skills
over social

studies

More time
with training

More time
with

leadership

A
gr

is
ag

re
e

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

whenever I can.” Similarly, another participant wrote, “District standards and guidelines are

totally unsupported by materials or professional development.”

Discussion

Use of integration. Results from both phases of the study suggest participating

elementary teachers identified integration as the primary method used for teaching social studies

content. Similarly, teachers reported having sufficient knowledge and skill for deploying

integrative pedagogy. However, these claims were contradicted by results showing a lack of time

for planning integrated lessons and the need for more integration strategies. Likewise, teachers

inferred the importance of social studies by reporting that they taught related concepts and

knowledge, but at the same time teachers reported that basic skills were somewhat more

important. Similar to studies by Bailey, Shaw, and Hollifield (2006) and Faulkner and Cook

(2006), participating teachers reported contradictory information, perhaps because they were

both expressing their beliefs about social studies, but also reporting the reality of how they focus

their time on tested subjects.

Curricula used for integration. Participating teachers reported using a wide variety of

curricula for integrating social studies, including social skills curricula, literacy curricula, and

traditional textbooks. Other teachers reported using project-based curricula, or reported no

curricula at all. According to Hinde (2005), there is little consensus about what an integrated

curriculum looks like, and results of this study concur with the variability that comes with

integration. However, whether history, geography, anthropology, economics, or other fields were

included as part of participating teachers’ efforts of integration were unclear. There was no

evidence that “the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic

competence” was occurring (National Council for the Social Studies, n.d.). Rather, results

seemed to validate findings by Bailey, Shaw, and Hollifield (2006), who reported that “teachers

would teach social studies when, or if, they got around to it” (p. 22).

Training and resources for integration. Participants narrowly indicated they would

spend more time on social studies if they had additional training. Their enthusiasm for district

leadership in the area of social studies instruction was even more neutral. However, participants

did not indicate outright dismissal of social studies or integrative pedagogy. The contrary seemed

to be true. Participants identified integration as their preferred method and they also validated the

importance of social studies. Nevertheless, there was no evidence to suggest teachers were

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

engaged in the kinds of activities called for by Gibson (2012), Lintner (2006), and Vogler (2011)

necessary for sustaining an integrated approach to content, such as concept teaching, inquiry, and

reflective analysis.

Conclusion

Standards-based reorganization and accountability schemes measured by test

achievement show little sign of abating. Even if educational leaders abandon reform activities

implemented over the last decade, the momentum behind these efforts is sure to prohibit

balanced treatment of subjects. The precarious state of education budgets and consequences

associated with low test scores are exerting additional pressure that discourage reapportioning

time and resources to subjects like social studies. Standards-based reorganization and

accountability activities are changing the way educators think about core curricula. The latest

example of this is adoption of Common Core standards, which are for literacy and mathematics

learning, rather than acquisition of social science knowledge and skills. Nevertheless, some

standards clearly overlap with social studies concepts. For instance, Common Core requires

students be able to cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary sources or

distinguish fact from opinion to make a reasoned judgment. The overall emphasis, however, is

clearly focused on improving achievement associated with literacy and mathematics.

At the same time, most educators at the elementary level embrace the use of integration

as a way to reconcile the value of social studies content with the necessity of test achievement.

However, results from this study suggest the sample of teachers claim integration as their

preferred method for social studies instruction, but struggle to achieve effective implementation.

Claiming integration as a solution for teaching social studies content without discussing

issues of time, training, or curricular resources, or the pressure exerted by high-stakes testing, is

disingenuous. Circumstances suggest additional compromise, even though many advocates of

social studies teaching and learning are sure to see additional concessions as untenable.

Alternatively, there are others who already recognize the need for a pragmatic approach.

Adoption of Common Core standards presents the next opportunity for practical solutions. It is

also an opportunity for educators and researchers to reexamine the merits of integration, and the

necessity to address implementation. Although small in comparison to what is needed, Table 1

shows some examples for promoting this work. Nevertheless, expecting a few examples will

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

cause educators to invest significant time and resources toward integration is optimistic, but any

strategy that preserves social studies as part of the core curricula is certainly worth considering.

Table 1. Integration of Social Studies Content with Common Core standards

Common Core Literacy

Standard

Social Studies Content Integrative Learning Activity

Provide a concluding

statement or section related to

information

Summarize major ideas in a

conclusion statement

Work in pairs to summarize

two ideas from Lee’s

Resolution of 1776 claiming

America’s independence from

Britain

Distinguish the literal and

nonliteral meanings of words

and phrases in context

Recognize instances in which

more than one interpretation of

factual material is valid

Listen to MLK’s I Have a

Dream speech and then

interpret two phrases

Read grade-level prose and

poetry orally with accuracy,

appropriate rate, and

expression

Understand and analyze causal

factors in major events in

history

Study and analyze poetry, such

as Western Wagons, by

Rosemary and Stephen

Vincent Benét, then recite a

portion of the poem

Compare and contrast the

point of view from which

different stories are narrated,

including the difference

between first- and third-person

narrations

Understand that there are

multiple perspectives and

interpretations of historical

events

Read historical fiction such as

Crispin, Catherine, Called

Birdy, or Robin’s Country and

compare and contrast

perspectives

Identify the reasons and

evidence a speaker provides to

support particular points

Identify a situation in which a

decision is required

Listen to Franklin Delano

Roosevelt’s speech declaring

war on Japan in 1941 and then

discuss three supporting

details

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

Report on a topic or text or

present an opinion, sequencing

ideas logically and using

appropriate facts and relevant,

descriptive details to support

main ideas or themes

Understand and apply

reasoning skills to conduct

research, deliberate, form and

evaluate positions

Study and collect data on a

local school issue, such as

playground equipment or

lunch room; share a

presentation of results

Common Core Math Standard Social Studies Content Integrative Learning Activity

Draw a picture graph or a bar

graph to represent a data set

with up to four categories

Understand that members of a

community make choices

among products and services

that have costs and benefits

Conduct a survey of four

common products, such as

paper towels or pizza, and

represent results in a graph

Generate data by measuring

lengths using rulers marked

with halves and fourths of an

inch

Understand and apply how

maps and globes are used to

display regions

Determine efficient and scenic

routes between school and a

local store or park

Represent real world and

mathematical problems by

graphing points in the first

quadrant of the coordinate

plane

Construct and use maps to

show and analyze information

about European settlement in

the Americas

Use a coordinate plane and

geographic coordinates to

analyze and compare early

American settlements, such as

Savannah, Williamsburg, and

New York

Summarize numerical data sets

in relation to their context

Understand the geographic

factors that influence the

movement of groups of people

in the past or present

Infer geographic influences

from statistics of immigrant

populations in the U.S. from

1860s to 1960s

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

References

Badley, K. (2009). Resisting curriculum integration: Do good fences make good neighbors?

Issues in Integrative Studies, 27, 113-117.

Bailey, G., Shaw, E. R., & Hollifield, D. (2006). The devaluation of social studies in the

elementary grades. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(2), 18-29.

Banks, J. (1993). Multicultural education: Development, dimensions, and challenges. Phi Delta

Kappan, 75(1) 22-28.

Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan,

76(8), 616-622.

Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2013). Getting to the core: Using digital resources to enhance

content-based literacy in the social studies. Social Education, 77(2), 102-106.

Bisland, B. M. (2012). The marginalization of social studies in the elementary grades: An

overview. In W. B. Russell (Ed.). Contemporary social studies: An essential reader (pp.

173-191). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Bolinger, K., & Warren, W. J. (2007). Methods practiced in social studies instruction: A review

of public school teachers’ strategies. International Journal of Social Education, 22(1),

68-84.

Center on Educational Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, challenges: Curriculum and instruction

in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org

Committee for Children. (2012). About committee for children. Retrieved from

http://www.cfchildren.org/advocacy/about-us.aspx

Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2007). Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. J., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science

and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.

Ellis, A. K. & Fouts, J. T. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: The research base. Music

Educators Journal, 87(5), 22-26.

Faulkner, S., & Cook, C. (2006). Testing vs. teaching: The perceived impact of assessment

demands on middle level instructional practices. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level

Education, 29(7), 1-13.

Gibson, S. (2012). Why do we learn this stuff? Students’ views on the purpose of social studies.

Canadian Social Studies, 45(1), 43-58.

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

Hand to Mind. (2013). WorldScapes. Retrieved from

http://www.hand2mind.com/worldscapes/worldscapes.jsp

Hartzler, D. S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs

and their effects on student achievement (Order No. 9967119). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses A & I. (304624583). Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.spu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304624583?account

id=2202

Haskell, R. E. (2000). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction and reasoning. San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). National trends in elementary instruction: Exploring the

role of social studies curricula. Social Studies, 103(2), 67-72.

Hinde, E. R. (2005). Revisiting curriculum integration: A fresh look at an old idea. Social

Studies, 96(3), 105-111.

Holloway, J., & Chiodo, J. J. (2009). Social studies IS being taught in the elementary school: A

contrarian view. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 235-261.

Houser, N. O. (1995). Social studies on the back burner: Views from the field. Theory and

Research in Social Education, 23(2), 147-168.

Interact. (2013). Storypath. Retrieved from http://www.teachstorypath.com

Kenna, J. L., & Russell, W. B. (2015). Secondary social studies teachers’ time commitment

when addressing the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Social Studies Education

Research, 6(1), 26-48.

Kinniburgh, L. H., & Byrd, K. (2008). Ten black dots and September 11: Integrating social

studies and mathematics through children’s literature. Social Studies, 99(1), 33-36.

Leming, J. S., Ellington, L., & Schug, M. (2006). The state of social studies: A national random

survey of elementary and middle school social studies teachers. Social Education, 70(5),

322-327.

Lintner, T. (2006). Social studies (still) on the back burner: Perceptions and practices of K-5

social studies instruction. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(1), 3-8.

Lucey, T. A., & Laney, J. D. (2009). This land was made for you and me: Teaching for economic

justice in upper elementary and middle school grades. Social Studies, 100(6), 260-272.

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2015: 6(2), 1-17

MacPhee, D. A., & Whitecotton, E. J. (2011). Bringing the “social” back to social studies:

Literacy strategies as tools for understanding history. Social Studies, 102(6), 263-267.

Maloy, R. W., Poirier, M., Smith, H. K., & Edwards, S. A. (2010). The making of a history

standards wiki: “Covering”, “uncovering”, and “discovering” curriculum frameworks

using a highly interactive technology. History Teacher, 44(1), 68-81.

McGuire, M. E. (2007). What happened to social studies?: The disappearing curriculum. Phi

Delta Kappan, 88, 620-624.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2008). Curriculum standards for social studies.

Retrieved from http://www.socialstudies.org

National Council for the Social Studies. (n.d.). About National Council for the Social Studies.

Retrieved from http://www.socialstudies.org/about

Parker, W. C. (2005). Social studies in elementary education. (12th ed.). Columbus, OH.

Pearson.

Pederson, P. V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind

Act on nonassessed subjects. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,

Issues and Ideas, 80, 287-291.

Schug, M. C., & Cross. B. (1998). The dark side of curriculum integration in social studies. The

Social Studies, 89(2), 54-56.

Singletary, T., & Miller, R. (2009). Instant integration: Just add water. Science Teacher, 76(2),

54-60.

Thomas, E. (2007). Thoughtful planning fosters learning transfer. Adult Learner, 18(3-4), 4-8.

Tyler, R. W. (2004). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. In D. J. Flinders, & S. J.

Thornton (Eds.), Curriculum studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 51-59). New York, NY:

Routledge.

VanFossen, P. J. (2005). Reading and math take so much time…: An overview of social studies

instruction in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376-403.

Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership,

49(2), 14-15.

Vars, G. F. (1997). In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level

practitioner (pp. 179-186). Waterville, OH: National Middle School Association.

David W. DENTON & Cindy SINK

Vogler, K. E. (2011). Back on the backburner? Impact of reducing state-mandated social studies

testing on elementary teachers’ instruction. Journal of Social Studies Research, 35(2),

163-190.

Winstead, L. (2011). The impact of NCLB and accountability on social studies: Teacher

experiences and perceptions about teaching social studies. The Social Studies, 102, 221-

227.

Wraga, W. G. (1993). The interdisciplinary imperative for citizenship education. Theory &

Research in Social Education. 21(3), 201-231.