I have long been possessed of the notion that there's a way to teach social studies – typically history, but not exclusively – so that it addresses more, that it goes beyond its curricular boundaries. My experience of learning social studies (up to and through majoring in history) taught me that social studies is, as a curricular subject, entirely self-referential: you learn history topics to later reference them...in other history classes. True, in an economics you need some math, and in civics you might need some persuasive writing/speaking skills, but these were always internal transfers – you bring other subjects into social studies; you don't bring social studies into the other subjects. As a result, social studies felt hived off from the rest of the curriculum. I knew that I loved social studies and felt it was vital and necessary...but most of my peers yawned and declaimed that they were merely suffering through it until they could get to study what they felt was useful (math, science) or lovely (English, art, music) or fun (languages, gym). Social studies somehow felt expendable to them, and I didn't know how to argue against it.
Before I go further, two caveats:
- I can hear, somewhere, a middle school principal saying, "Yes! Social studies is expendable! Let's replace it with literacy instruction! Social studies is just a vehicle to teach reading and writing in an applied context!" I couldn't disagree more. As stated above, I think social studies is vital, not expendable, and I think that burrowing into the literacy work inherent in social studies is misguided. True, social studies involves reading and writing...but it also involves maps and data and artwork and music – to turn it into a canvas for the Common Core's ELA goals distorts both the means and the ends of social studies and will result, in my humble opinion, in an even worse social studies experience for students.
- Any student of the history of social studies will point out that I'm describing the terrible social studies that is (in many places but not all), not the vibrant social studies that should be, as described by the early acolytes of Dewey (and indeed as exists in some places). This alternate vision of social studies integrates current events, finds relevant connections to student interests, is inquiry-driven, etc. I'm a fan of this vision...but I find that it's easier to preach it than to live it. This version of social studies calls for incredible sophistication and courage from the teacher, and even I'm not always up to the task. I've been teaching social studies methods for ten years now, and I certainly don't hold myself to the same level of invention and re-invention described in this approach. So: I'm ultimately dissatisfied with myself when I advocate for this approach. I don't feel that I'm being honest with my students.
In my approach to teaching social studies – and in my advocacy when teaching social studies methods classes – I have always found maps and data to be stimulating. This interest has fueled my work with GIS (and other geospatial tools) in social studies. I knew that putting topics in geospatial context added value, and that being able to visually represent data made topics far more accessible to students than if presented in more textual and/or numeric formats. If you can manipulate the data – as you can in GIS – then the lesson can become far more dynamic and interesting and engaging to students. When it all clicks, it's magical. I describe it as "history class leaning forward" – the student is leaning in to see the map, ask a question, share an observation, etc. The differences among students – reading ability, English language mastery, prior social studies knowledge – become flattened out, or at least re-shuffled, because of the dynamic, visually-accessible presentation.
However, I knew that there was a weak point in my understanding of what was going on: the data. I knew that maps were useful / interesting / engaging / accessible / relevant...but how to approach the selection and manipulation of data? My experience was always very hit-or-miss: sometimes it came together beautifully and I saw the thread of inquiry right away (for example, Yad Vashem's data on Jewish populations circa the Holocaust) and other times it fell apart as a confused jumble of maps and disconnected data layers, a collapsed souffle (an attempted lesson on gerrymandering Congressional districts in Pennsylvania). I knew that I could keep working a confused jumble towards a clear line of inquiry (an analysis of Lehigh Valley school district's using Rawl's 'veil of ignorance' thought experiment), but it still felt altogether too haphazard.
Over time, I have latched onto computational thinking as the missing piece. I have long observed the Computational Thinking SIG at the SITE conference, thinking, "Either they need to merge with the Geospatial SIG or we need to merge with them." I've always been excited to run into computational thinking presentations at other conferences, such as ASTE. In the past year, however, thanks to two doctoral students, I have decided that computational thinking provides the frame for getting to students to think about the data that I love to put on maps.
Accordingly, I argue that there is a way to teach social studies – typically history, but not exclusively – that incorporates spatial reasoning and computational thinking. (Insert snappy acronym here – I seriously can't think of one.) This approach will simultaneously achieve several objectives
- It will provide students with an engaging, stimulating, interesting, and fun social studies experience. It will be hard fun, but it will be fun – students will have a chance to argue, to construct counter-interpretations, to re-shape and re-think the past, present, and future.
- It will allow social studies to go beyond – the skills developed in social studies (specifically spatial reasoning and computational thinking) will be novel additions to the K-12 curriculum. Some students experience these already in computer science class or art class...but most don't. Social studies' universality – which I've always felt but haven't been able to bring to light for others – will be visible, established, and accessible.