Abstract
In this study we examine early career social studies teachers’ use and understanding of critical simulations. We began work with participants as teacher candidates in their pre-service programs and formally studied them as they began their in-service teaching. We were particularly interested in teacher efforts to use simulation to facilitate a more critical disciplinary consciousness. Data indicate that participant teachers utilized simulations to: enhance students’ ability to critically engage with social studies content, facilitate more democratic dialogue, and critique normalized systems of power. We do not suggest that simulations in and of themselves are “critical,” rather, we argue they can be an effective means of providing a safe environment for considering the complexities of certain issues in social studies. Furthermore, we argue critical social studies teachers and teacher educators can be purposeful in their use of simulation to avoid enshrining the status quo. Finally simulations can help critical teachers illuminate oppression and facilitate a more humanizing vision within the social studies if they possess critical consciousness, strong pedagogical content knowledge and a command of the method.
Keywords
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the ways social studies teachers understand, experience, and utilize critical simulations with their students. Though simulations are not necessarily critical in and of themselves, we find that they can provide a shared hermeneutic through which students might critically interpret the world. Teachers demonstrating critical consciousness, strong pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical skill are likely to have success using the method. However, despite their potential to be a positive experience, simulations can also recreate status quo perceptions and can therefore be unhelpful if not well thought out and executed.
We proceed by discussing ideological approaches to teaching, framing the ways teachers pedagogically and experientially understand the classroom. Next, we suggest that values, ideologies, and lived experiences nuance work done in teacher education programs and inform the ways teachers and students will approach classrooms and critical simulation as praxis (Magill and Salinas, 2019; Freire, 1993; Mirra and Morrell, 2011). Then, we then outline ways shared critical experiences like simulation can help students develop a foundation for interrogating social studies and social knowledge. Our research suggests that simulations can play an important role in helping new teachers reveal and trouble ideologies that emerge in the curriculum, within social norms, and within themselves. Ultimately, simulations might help develop community culture, foundational knowledge and facilitate informed democratic discussion.
Ideology and teacher education
Critical and uncritical contexts in teacher education
The ideological and pedagogical approaches teacher educators choose are relevant to the ways their lessons are realized. However, even in the most transformational teacher education programs, dispositions, pedagogical content knowledge and critical ideologies are not simply learned and applied. Teachers often struggle to understand how their actions with students relate to their philosophical approach. Therefore, a major consideration when designing experiences for pre-service social studies teachers are how those experiences relate to the methods, pedagogies, and dispositions used to help them prepare for the classroom. Teacher educators are tasked with helping pre-service teachers consider how methods are tools to facilitate knowledge and not lessons in and of themselves. Helping deconstruct the pedagogies and materials pre-service educators see and experience can be developmentally stimulating while providing future teachers with the opportunity to reveal many of the complexities of teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond, 2012).
These deconstructions can help teachers conceptualize ways pedagogies and experiences reflect their philosophical approach to teaching, however, programs also must provide the technical training to help them thrive within existing schooling structures. In practice then, the pedagogical approaches of teacher educators might involve helping their students understand metacognitive shifts between student and teacher done in their university experiences. In other words, when teacher educators demonstrate how to utilize a method, part of the process becomes about understanding the experience as a future student would. Coming to this realization involves considering what students are thinking, how their ideologies inform the lessons, what they are learning, how they are interpreting and how the pedagogical skills being used are informing the experience. Further, teacher educators often help candidates experience developmentally and ideologically appropriate pedagogies that are both individualized and communal. These targeted approaches help new teachers by probing their thinking, pinpointing potential problems and finding openings for generative discussion of key ideas (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
Naturally, ideological approaches can unfold in methods coursework in different ways, represented in a range that includes providing students with a “crash course” for classroom survival to deeply considering the epistemological, ontological, and metaphysical dimensions of teaching. Unfortunately, external framing of and assaults on teacher education programs sometimes lead to more performative and less intellectually creative pedagogical teacher education experiences (Sleeter, 2008; Stanley and Longwell, 2004). Namely, neoliberal and neoconservative approaches to teaching and teacher education tend to reinforce the ideological needs of corporate expansion rather than more critical considerations of the social world (Giroux, 2010). When adopting more neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies, uncritical teacher education programs tend to narrow democratic thought, limit certain forms of cultural capital, enforce social class and limit possibility in public education while focusing on how to utilize methods and survive in the classroom (Gabbard and Atkinson, 2007; Sleeter, 2008). More in-depth, critical and comprehensive programs tend to focus on these elements as they relate to the moral and ethical dimensions of the classroom, often attending more directly to issues of cultural and linguistic diversity (Yosso, 2005), building on students’ funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) and emphasizing critical multicultural citizenship (Castro, 2013). Ultimately, the values, approaches and dispositions learned in teacher education programs frame the ways teachers utilize methods to help transform perceptions and the social world or reinforce the existing superstructure (Marx and Engels, 1844/2009).
Scholars also suggest that a task of teacher educators should be to dislodge the idea that certain practices just “work.” Instead it is healthy for teachers to struggle and develop a sense of healthy uncertainty to have more meaningful exchanges by supporting student voice (Friedrich, 2014; Subedi, 2008). In fact, scholarship suggests new teachers should be having potentially unsettling educational conversations to better understand the realities of dialectics in educational practice (Magill and Salinas, 2019). More communal dialogical experiences grounded in individualized perceptions of teaching can help new teachers see across differences to adopt more culturally relevant, culturally responsive, and culturally sustaining pedagogies (Freire and Macedo, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2014; McCarty and Lee, 2014; Paris and Aim, 2014). Discussions of culture, content, and classroom teaching help new teachers reflexively implement personally informed and culturally relevant materials, pedagogies, and experiences crucial to their pedagogical development (Ball and Cohen, 1999; Freire and Macedo, 2005).
Facilitating critical and ethical conversations related to pedagogy and the social world is both vital and challenging. Social artifacts, authentic experiences, and creative lessons can be a positive medium for critical interpretation of the world (Magill and Rodriguez, 2019; Freire, 1993). Foundational to dialogically troubling pedagogical approaches, ideologies, and the standardization of knowledge, are the shared spaces and ways to consider these challenging ideas. In these spaces, new teachers can develop new cultural perceptions, pedagogical content knowledge, consider ways “methods” are often fetishized, and cultivate their political/ideological clarity (Bartolomé, 1994, 2004; Shulman, 1986). This clarity allows teachers to better understand how students produce meanings, signs, and values related to lessons and social life. This level of consciousness can be key to legitimizing certain forms of knowledge rather than marginalizing others. Though challenging, having shared experiences and considering social artifacts can be powerful tools for developing shared consciousness of challenging social concepts.
Critical teacher practices: Artifacts and approaches
Seeing and understanding the social relations of production, or the relationships people enter to survive, is a powerful educational experience, particularly when utilized to develop critical consciousness. Freire (1993) suggests that understanding the way power functions is a vital aspect of a teacher’s ability to read the world. Achieving this with students can involve analyzing the way society produces and values artifacts in relation to historical realities. Texts, for example, can be artifacts through which a group can illuminate some of the social alienation others face (Linder and Majerus, 2016). Dialoguing about these and other shared artifacts and valuing student literacies can help participants understand the complex issues that exist beyond mainstream interpretations (Freire and Macedo, 2005; Ochoa and Pineda, 2008). Darder (2017) argues that dialoguing about shared artifacts is vitally important for improving society in any sort of meaningful way because it is “virtually impossible to speak of a revolutionary practice [in] education outside the dialogical process” (p. 102). Dialogue about social artifacts creates a shared experience through which language and action becomes a medium to extend one’s cognitive reach (Magill and Blevins, 2020; Magill and Rodriguez, 2019). Conversely, when things are communicated to a person without thinking, dialoguing and experiencing something, ideas tend to be abstractly adopted without a schema for social interaction.
A critical focus, artifact analysis, and dialogue might provide a space for students to critically interpret culture (Magill, 2019; Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017; Freire, 1993). Simulations can provide such a context for teachers and their students to have these experiences. We suggest that because the ideological strength of educational norms can be so powerful for new teachers to contend with, shared critical simulations can be particularly helpful for fostering shared culture and developing dialogical exchanges. Critical simulations might provide a safe experience whereby students can develop a more transformational schema through which to read the world. Through these experiences, wrapped in the social studies curriculum, students may become better equipped to understand their own ideologies and the cultural interpretations of others in their community. As pre-service teachers become more aware of the dialectical tensions associated with social life, they can begin to engage in more meaningful inquiries and complex historical, sociological and economic interpretations. These inquiries and understandings can become foundations for critical dialogical praxis (Magill and Rodriguez, 2015A AND 2015B; Magill and Rodriguez, forthcoming; McLaren, 1988). Without more critical framing of pedagogy and strong pedagogical content knowledge, teachers risk developing unsuccessful and problematic habits informing their practice.
Simulations
The relationship between critical consciousness and simulation has not been adequately explored. Fogo’s (2014) report focusing on identifying core teaching practices for secondary history did not include simulations as a core practice due to experts’ conflicting opinions on its benefits and drawbacks. Important critiques of simulations suggest they lead to trivializing the past, though some teachers are able to frame them in such a way that they prove meaningful (DiCamillo and Gradwell, 2012, 2013). Others have suggested that very few teachers engaging in simulations have a clear instructional purpose, show difficulty with running experiential lessons, and end up putting forward misconceptions about the content (Dack et al., 2016). Though not explicitly studied, the analysis largely critiques ways simulations become a fetishized practice and used merely to facilitate content. We agree with those who argue that critically conscious teachers with strong pedagogical content knowledge are able to work beyond this trivialization of the approach, surmount simulation’s methodological challenges and address the issue of challenging historical misconceptions (e.g. Blevins, Magill and Salinas, 2019).
Studies have also demonstrated benefits to a well-run simulation suggesting they can foster intrinsic motivation (Malone and Lepper, 1987), improve attitudes toward particular areas of study (Ke, 2008) and encourage more student engagement (Ketelhut, 2007). Though simulations are hardly generalizable and must be done with sufficient care, they can offer students emotional and intellectual access to a topic (Schweber, 2003, 2004). Efforts to use simulations tend to be more successful when scaffolded through orientation, participant training, operations and participant debriefing (Joyce et al., 2009). When done effectively, simulations can facilitate problem solving, critical thinking and social skills. Students can assume roles that help them to examine problems, understand relationships and pose real, socially informed questions (Cotton et al., 1997). Simulations have also been shown to help enhance students’ historical thinking skills by allowing students to engage in complex and uncertain dilemmas from the past (Pellegrino et al., 2012). Furthermore, simulations can be used to promote civic identities (Lo, 2017) and teach valuable skills in geography (Dunn, 2009) and economics (Broome and Preston-Grimes, 2011). Simulations can also be a way to support reluctant learners because they often appeal to a wide variety of students (Bransford et al., 2000; Meyers and Jones 1993).
Given these positive perspectives and a critical approach to teacher education in social studies, we suggest simulations might increase learning and engagement while developing critical orientations and perceptions. Authentic critical experiences can lead to ideological transformation when meaningful and contextualized lived experiences are considered though “experiential instructional techniques” (Dack et al., 2016: 41). These practices can be embedded within critical disciplinary instructional practices for significant benefit (cf. Magill and Salinas, 2019). Several scholars have shown ways teachers attend to challenging social issues in less formal or less threatening contexts (i.e. Boyte, 2003; LeCompte and Blevins, 2016; Noguera et al., 2006; Yang and Duncan-Andrade, 2005). These approaches allow students to engage in lessons while reducing fear of formal judgment.
Despite evidence to suggest its difficulty (e.g. Dack et al., 2016), teachers can help students escape the narrow fields of cultural production in ideologically rigid systems (Apple, 2017; Bourdieu, 1987). They can foster learning and engagement through simulations to help students consider their social orientations and perceptions. In relation to critical pedagogy, social studies teachers have utilized simulations to help students engage with difficult issues in experiential ways (Parker and Lo, 2016). Giving students the opportunities to engage in identity affirming and real world simulations as well as problem based learning can allow students to critically “discern what is relevant, and interact with peers to solve a problem with little direction. . .[offering] a deeper understanding of the process that is being simulated through self-directed problem solving” (Pagnotti and Russell, 2015: 282).
Essential to critical pedagogy is valuing student interpretations as they learn to read the world and transform it for the betterment of humankind. Critical pedagogy is premised on the philosophical, experiential and interactive nature of activist praxis (Freire, 2005). The interactive and engaging nature of simulations might provide a context for developing a safe way to reveal one’s critical consciousness and to begin to pursue more critically praxiological work. Though not transformational in and of themselves, simulations can serve as a shared artifact for dialogue and reflection toward action. Social studies teacher educators can incorporate simulations as part of powerful and purposeful transformational social studies praxis (c.f. Pagnotti and Russell, 2015; Wright-Maley, 2015). Therefore, we believe teachers with an understanding of critical pedagogy might be able to utilize simulations as a tool for revealing the social world.
Despite our and some in the field’s optimism for the benefits for critical simulations, we acknowledge that the method in and of itself is not critical (nor is any strict adherence to a method e.g. Bartolome, 1994). We simply claim that shared interpretations of an experience can help pre-service teachers do two things: one, it can facilitate their own ideological shifts; and two, teacher educators can use simulations as vehicles for dialoguing about their shared experiences. The variety of uses for simulations in social studies is appealing, yet as DeLeon (2008, p. 274) cautions, “if teachers are not aware of the ideology that simulations reproduce, these texts can become a powerful tool in replicating the status quo.” In this study, we seek to offer examples of simulations in which teachers and students come to new and shared consciousness about a given topic. Simulations can help participants to reflect on life, disrupt dominant narratives and have a shared experience that helps to interrogate difficult social realities. Therefore, simulations can help teachers develop a shared hermeneutic for emotional and human connectivity through which classroom communities might have more meaningful dialogues toward communal praxis.
Theoretical framework
Our theoretical framework draws upon three significant concepts as they apply to social studies education – simulations as a pedagogical practice, critical consciousness as clarity in understanding the power relations that order teaching and society, and a critical pedagogical content knowledge. In examining simulations as a method, we use Wright-Maley’s (2015) social studies specific conceptualization of simulations. This conceptualization includes four significant components: verisimilitude, or the need to “reflect real life processes” (Wright-Maley, 2015: 67); dynamism and variability, or the “potential for the simulation to flow in unscripted and unexpected directions” (p. 67); active human agents, or the “full participatory engagement” (p. 69) of all students; and pedagogical mediation, or “the intentional interactions between adult and child that are oriented toward and respond to the child’s learning and well-being” (p. 69). Importantly these four components are interrelated and act in conjunction, becoming collectively stronger as each individual element is reinforced.
Our vision for more critical simulations in social studies in informed by Freire’s (2005) idea of critical consciousness, which offers a way to recognize the power relationships that “intervene actively in reality,” (p. 6) shaping the relationships between teacher, student, and artifact. Included in a critically conscious approach to simulation would be a rejection of the over-simplification of problems presented as epochal themes. Consider that simulations often lead students to a pre-determined conclusions, are left over-simplified and/or do not encourage critical interpretation. Instead a critically conscious shared experience “must grow out of a critical educational effort based on favorable historical conditions” (p. 15). Therefore, the teacher’s critical consciousness toward, and negotiation of, the power relations that order the experience play a vital role in the success of the critical simulation.
Ultimately however, teachers require a critical consciousness to consider how power relations have unfolded in society, knowledge of the subject area to ensure students are learning content and the critical pedagogical content knowledge to negotiate how those power relationships exist within the simulation process (e.g. Blevins, Magill and Salinas, 2019). Therefore, we suggest that a teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge intersects with their critical consciousness and knowledge of simulations to establish a more meaningful instructional experience (Shulman, 1987). In other words, critical consciousness and the pedagogical content knowledge to conduct a simulation appear vital to its general success.
We suggest that the relationship between simulation and critical consciousness is an interesting one because of its implications for demonstrating how informed cultural and material engagement can lead to social change. We further suggest that simulations are educational tools that have the potential to support a critical teacher in their activist classroom praxis. By uniting the components of social studies specific simulation described by Wright-Maley (2015) and considering the relationships between consciousness and transformation articulated by Freire (2005), we were better able to understand how this teaching practice can serve as a medium for conscious becoming by the pre-service teachers in this study and for helping them to more genuinely think about their role as critical educators. Ultimately, we believe a critical simulation is an imitation of a social experience centered around a meaningful personal, historical, or social artifact that serves as a shared hermeneutic for developing a more critical consciousness that becomes a foundation for engaging in more transformational research and/or action.
Given these considerations, we asked the following research questions: In what ways are simulations used in social studies classrooms to foster a critical vision of social studies after experiencing critical teacher education coursework? What is revealed about the transformative potential of the social studies classroom when simulations are used as pedagogical tool?
Critiquing monolithic and problematic economic perspectives in teacher education
The following simulation example was from an economics lesson presented to pre-service teachers in our social studies credentialing program. We provides this example to demonstrate how simulations might be introduced to young teachers, why they might want to consider critical simulations in their teaching and how a simulation can become a hermeneutic for shared analysis.
We began the lesson by discussing ways the neoclassical economic paradigm functions as a dominant narrative in economics (Adams, 2019; Shanks, 2018) suggesting it is premised on beliefs that humans act in their own self-interest (Miller, 1993), that humans are insatiably acquisitive (Jo et al., 2012) and that markets are ideal mechanisms to coordinate these unlimited wants and individual interests (Ötsch and Kapeller, 2010). We chose to simulate these elements to critique the neoclassical economic paradigm because we understood this to be fundamental to the promotion of neoliberal policies that have achieved hegemony in the world economy (Couret Branco, 2016; Wright-Maley and Davis, 2016).
In the simulation, students took on the role of buyers and sellers in a trading game (c.f. Holt, 1996) and were asked to negotiate sales prices in order to generate profit (adjustments were made to teach about additional topics such as market structures, minimum wage impacts, and international trade). Buyers and sellers (participants) were distributed equally and had a schedule of production costs and money to spend. This simulation began with a typical round of trading designed to simulate perfect competition. In the first round, we provided prizes for the student or students who earned the most individual profit. Data were collected to establish a baseline level of average profit and total profit of the simulated “economy.” During the second round of the simulation, prizes were awarded to the entire class only if
When discussing the impact of this simulation and pedagogies they would pursue our pre-service teachers described several reasons for using critical simulations. Several discussed the simulation as a means to critique status quo economic, social policy and other related discourses. As Christa mentioned: [It’s a] really good reference point for the rest of the year. . .Economics is not just a capitalist discourse and framework . . . there’s a lot of different ways that economics [exists] in different spaces.
Robert described how the experience functioned as a break from individualist notions of neoclassical economics saying, “as a class, we were like a community and so you had to build the economy for that [the community] . . . we had to consider- how does this affect you [others]?” Robert also noted that the simulation was “simple enough for students to understand” but would allow him to teach about why free markets “get adopted and abused.”
Bryce suggested that simulations were “fun and very concrete” and “very tactile.” This sentiment was shared by Xavier who further argued that simulations were helpful pedagogical tool in economics because “in economics there is an idea of competition or cooperation and it’s dynamic, and you need to relate to other people.” Britney critical considered the ideologies that simulations helped reveal suggesting they helped them “critique the neoliberal and neoclassical emphasis on free trade.” Reframing the human implications of the neoclassical economic paradigm, she mentioned, “it’s like, actually is this good for the people there? . . . usually, no, obviously not.” Susan similarly discussed some of the broad systematic implications of neo-classical economics that often go unconsidered: Okay, well what happens if this country is good at making everything? What happens to country B? What happens if country B puts a tax on things? What happens to this. . . is this good for the people there? I feel like people who have less of the neo-classical exposure are probably more apt to be like, “no, obviously not” Because they haven’t been indoctrinated.
Based on these responses we suggest that simulations can achieve more than actively enshrining the status quo (DeLeon, 2008) offering alternative ways of thinking about oppressive systems on both a theoretical and practical level. The experience also demonstrated how theories and paradigmatic assumptions are interwoven into the practice of economics. Further, these experiences reveal that simulation can be a more critical pedagogical practice to develop a critical transitivity (Freire, 2005) in opposition to hegemonic thinking.
Methods
Data sources
Having explored simulation in our pre-service teacher education program, we began to consider how new “critical” social studies teachers might considered simulation as part of their pedagogical praxis. Data for these examinations were drawn from observations of student teaching experiences, semi-structured interviews, various artifacts and informal interactions (Creswell, 2002). We utilized a multiple site critical case study to compare how simulations exist across the three research sites (Stake, 2005). Our goal was to both reveal the transformative potential of simulations and how teachers take them up in practice after considering critical philosophy in their teacher education coursework, rather than to simply illuminate participant reflections on the experience (Merriam, 1998). A multiple site critical case study design allowed us to consider how critical social studies teaching related to the way participants’ ideological approaches to education existed within a bounded research context and within our research frame. We considered multiple sources and types of information within the research context over a two-year period and collected data from direct observation, semi-structured interviews, artifacts and informal interactions (Creswell, 2002). Formal data collection with participants Travis and Caesar (participant names are pseudonyms) occurred during the spring 2016 through fall of 2017. We conducted three informal observations and four formal simulations observations of each teacher observing the participant for the entire school day. Informal observations were conducted to deepen our understanding of the day-to-day pedagogical content knowledge, critical consciousness and participants interaction with students. Formal observations ensured that we would observe the teachers conducting at least two different simulations. We made sure to observe the beginning of the simulation and the subsequent lesson(s). Each teacher participated in three semi-structured interviews. Interviews took approximately one hour and were recorded at the beginning, middle, and end of each semester. We collected artifacts such as lesson plans, handouts, journals, classroom art and posters to help confirm our analysis and establish conclusions about the factors affecting teacher decision making (Denzin and Lincoln, 2018). These data allowed for a highly contextual and unique analysis of each of our participants (Merriam, 1998).
To analyze the data, we utilized a constant comparative approach, noting similarities, differences, categories, concepts, and ideas to ensure that participant voices emerged within the patterns and themes discussed in the findings (Glaser and Strauss, 1965; Miles et al., 2014). Interview transcripts, field notes and artifacts were chunked and coded based on the observable relationships between pedagogical content knowledge, dialogue, skills, power, and civics. Together we considered how the teachers practices related to our framework consisting of pedagogical content knowledge, critical consciousness and the simulation’s reflection of real-life processes. Further we examined simulation through the possibility for unexpected directions, full student engagement and orienting student wellbeing. Initial codes included ideas like civics, consciousness, inquiry, traditional pedagogy/curriculum, dialogical methods, and recognition of power. Codes were narrowed based on their relationship to the conceptual framework (Creswell, 2002; Stake, 2005). Finally, we engaged in dialectical analysis of the data, which allowed us to examine how participating teachers understood and acknowledged the ideology informing the relationships between content, power, simulation, and alienation (Agostinone-Wilson, 2013).
Participant and context
Both participants attended a Masters/credential teacher preparation program in the Southwest United States that was designed to prepare teachers for the unique cultural and sociopolitical environments of urban schools. By emphasizing dialogic relationships, focusing on student experience, critiquing official knowledge and introducing critical questions and subjugated knowledge, this teacher education program upheld important tenets of a humanizing approach to social studies teacher education (Blevins and Talbert, 2015). Central to this vision was an asset-oriented approach to cultural and linguistic diversity (Yosso, 2005), ethnographic analysis of student backgrounds to inform curriculum (Moll et al., 1992) and the promotion of critical multicultural citizenship (Castro, 2013). These tenets were a part of both a master’s program that led to a teaching credential, as well as an undergraduate program that likewise led to certification. The participants were both part of the master’s version of this program, a 2-year program where pre-service teachers were in the field for 45 hours in the first two semesters and functioned as full-time student teachers in the third semester. In addition to other coursework, participants received instruction in social studies methods throughout these three semesters in classes and seminars.
Travis and Caesar
Travis and Caesar were purposefully chosen as individual cases for analysis because we worked with them in pre-service teaching experiences. They had expressed an interest in critical teaching, improving pedagogical content knowledge and incorporating simulations in their classrooms. Both self-identified as critical and wanted to further explore critical teaching and critical simulations. Each participant suggested critical was related to troubling a monolithic/hegemonic curriculum, helping students develop a critical consciousness and supporting them become more engaged citizens.
Travis was raised in Central Arizona and identified as a White Male. He was a 23- and 24-year-old World History, Government and Geography teacher during data collection. The district (approximately 9500 students) and school (approximately 800 students) where he worked were mid-sized and small, respectively, for the area and both the district and school had large Latina/o populations. His school was classified as an “early college high school” situated in a rural community near a large urban center that was experiencing significant and diverse growth. Both authors worked with Travis as instructors during his university credentialing experiences and as field supervisors for his student teaching.
Caesar was a 22-year-old at the end of his student teaching and in his first year of in-service teaching when data were collected for this study (these were the same school). Caesar taught World Geography, United States History (post-reconstruction) and World History at a traditional middle school. Caesar’s middle school had a largely Latina/o population and his school (approximately 1600 students) was located in a large urban school district (approximately 86,000 students). He identified as a “white” male, though he noted some discomfort with the moniker noting “whiteness has power”. He was also bilingual and raised in Northern California.
Additional context
The authors of the study were intricately involved in this program and the development of these pre-service teachers. At various times, they served as instructors, field supervisors, teaching assistants, classmates, mentors, friends and confidants to the participants. These relationships were part of an intentional effort to develop and maintain a community of critical teachers dedicated to intellectual solidarity throughout and beyond the teacher preparation process (Magill and Rodriguez, forthcoming). The results of this study may therefore be limited by the familiarity and collegiality between the researchers and participants. The results may also have been enhanced by these relationships. During data collection, Kevin was the primary researcher for the focal teachers in their prior student-teaching experiences. Neil had previously observed and worked with the teachers as their student teacher field supervisor. Both researchers had be instructors of record for participant social studies methods coursework.
Findings
The data from this study suggests the participants described and utilized simulations for three distinct purposes. First, simulations were a way to enhance engagement in the classroom; second, they served as a hermeneutic to facilitate a democratic dialogue; and third, they were a way to challenge systems of power. What is more, each teacher was concerned with how their practice might be more closely aligned with the practices and dispositions of critical social studies educators. Even though many of the simulations enacted or discussed did not explicitly conform to more common frameworks for social studies simulations (Wright-Maley, 2015), teachers consistently pursued critical consciousness and the opportunity to engage epochal themes, illuminate their causes and engender dialogue. This was true in the case of simulations enacted in classrooms as well as in the way participants discussed the value of simulations as part of a critical vision for social studies.
Travis
Travis demonstrated that simulation could be used for critically revealing and critiquing socio-historical perspectives. Describing the types of lessons he thought were most important for students, he argued “simulations. . .critical instruction. . .and inquiry based instruction, even problem based instruction or experiential education, are some of the best places to teach social studies,” and that these types of experiences “[were] a major emphasis in my teacher education program.”
In an end-of-semester unit for his world history class in the fall of 2017, Travis had his students prepare for a simulation by conducting a two-day research inquiry into a particular nation state. Students had been researching the geo-politics of many of the countries presented for much of the year. Travis asked the students to focus on issues related to human rights, politics, citizenship, and economic resources. They examined texts Travis provided and searched for additional information online recording what they found in notebooks. Two days before the simulation, Travis asked students to review their information for homework and be ready to discuss it with their classmates the following day.
The next day, students came to class ready to discuss human rights, politics, citizenship, and economic resources. They dialogued in small groups about what they had discovered through their inquiries. In their groups, Travis asked the students to share at least three primary source documents that they had found to justify their perspectives on the politics, citizenship, and economic resources. Travis rotated as they discussed these items. He answered questions and joined conversations. To conclude the lesson, Travis reminded students that they would be conducting a simulated UN session the following class period. He showed them a video on UN voting and deliberation and then the students were dismissed to move to their next class.
In their next class meeting, Travis asked his students to embody the values, world standing and goals of their assigned nation state incorporating ideas from their research and discussions. Importantly, Travis made sure to restate the influence of resources, neoliberal capitalism and imperialism on international deliberation and social change. In doing so he demonstrated an awareness of some of the broader philosophical inequities that situate social relations for his students.
After a final review of their inquiry research, the class began to simulate membership in the United Nations (UN). Travis let students take charge of this lesson only interjecting as Secretary General to moderate discussions and voting. He called the UN session to order and asked nations to develop proposals. The class attempted first to address human trafficking, which then expanded to human rights more generally to develop “international coalitions.” Students argued on the simulated floor of the UN as members of their country and as democratic participants trying to solve an issue:
We have a serious issue of human trafficking. Jamaica is a tier-two watch country because of sex trafficking and young children. Right now we have, from the start of the year, 1000 missing children and need help with this problem. I encourage a discussion to how to go about this issue.
I will open the floor on the topic for open debate and please share how the topic affects your country. Begin thinking about proposals for how to solve the issue. You have ten minutes to discuss issue now. (Students deliberate)
What is your barrier from stopping the sex trafficking?
Um just that like how I don’t know how to go about addressing it.
Can you offer resources for people or incentives for them to not traffic?
It is just too profitable right now.
Next, students were asked to discuss the issues in smaller groups and develop deliberative partnerships. Certain country representatives wanted to, unsuccessfully, include issues of anti-Semitism, woman’s rights and free democratic expression. Opponents suggested the additional ideas would dilute the substance in the conversation they were having. In this instance students were able to see, understand and articulate the way politics, economics and deliberation function as they engaged in simulated democratic dialogue. They began to understand some of the ways that politics and money take primacy over alleviating civic rights, which was an intentional part of Travis’s instructional design (Future research in later class periods would unfold from these experiences and perspectives).
As the simulation continued, a student representing the Netherlands proposed making a human rights, rather than a purely trafficking, proposal. This was discussed, written and given to Travis. Travis announced this shift in focus. Some nations agreed calling certain countries like Russia, Egypt and Iran to task for their violations of these ideas. The coalition responded to these allegations.
We feel it is in our national interest to put down decenters for the benefit of the common person’s security so we will not accept outside influence or sanctions. We are doing this for the benefit of the state and my people. This is how things are run.
Russia and Egypt representatives supported Iran claiming outside nations do not understand their situation. Another student attempted to mediate.
I have seen human rights improve after the fall of communism in my country so I guess we could help Iran have a new government and it would improve human rights.
The students returned to groups to develop a plan to address those human rights issues informed by their deliberation. Travis addressed the class.
After deliberation about the topic of human rights we have been presented with a proposal. This proposal comes to us from Canada, Venezuela, The United States, Romania, Poland, Chile, Netherlands, and Italy.
We do not condone any violation of human rights and would like to be part of the solution.
We propose we reach out to countries affected by human rights violations and support the countries by allowing the immigration of people from countries that where human rights are infringed into our countries. We will promote togetherness to prevent divisions in society.
I just want to clarify, that our commitment is not intended to be like a war alliance or to get over on you other countries (Russia, Egypt, Iran), but um one where we are helping human rights victims- so we won’t overthrow the government of Iran.
As long as you are helping and not taking our stuff and blaming us for everything. (Resolve Russia)
OK so do I have any support for this proposal? Please put forth your placards in support of the proposal. OK 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc. This proposal has been passed.
Interestingly as the students engaged in the simulation, their actions reflected an acceptance of the palliative of the UN. Ideologically, certain students argued against human rights in favor of national rights. Some participants were fine taking a subordinated role to those with power and those with coalitions. Those that spoke were un-critical of Western human rights violations, largely accepting narratives that come from Western media. However this reality also inspired some to challenges the un-democratic and political instances of power that they observed in the process. Importantly, Travis’s approach to simulation demonstrated these political elements that often frame U.N. politics. Students began to understand the deeper and more complex aspects of coming to international consensus. By foregrounding and embodying the “Western” versus “Eastern” political coalitions, students were able to take perspectives other than the dominant geopolitical narratives they had come to understand as US citizens. The simulation helped students realize that hegemonic approaches to international consensus making are not monolithically good for all people and that those in power often control and frame international conversations. Therefore, students came to a more critical understandings about some political realities and issues. Similarly, the simulation helped open new opportunities to understand cultural differences and historical alienation that can often limit the ways countries will interact.
In future lessons Travis and his students referenced this lesson, considering the impotency of certain countries within the UN when their goals did not align with the majority, the US or with Western hegemony. The simulation became a foundational experience by which students could learn ways that all countries, including the US, will do political things in support of their own interest. The simulation did not finish as the Russian Delegate predicted, where the measures ended up “blaming us for everything.” Rather, that countries abided by treaties and international agreements when it benefited their interests.
Through this mock UN, students became very engaged in this project because of the personal ways they were able to identify with their countries. Their critical consciousness grew through the developmental practices of social studies inquiry, through their development of shared artifacts, deliberative experiences and by analyzing the power relations that were created through the simulation. Subsequent conversations about the social relations of production reflected the new ways the students and Travis were conscious of power. Deliberation erupted in this class because the uncommon experiences and knowledge students learned in the simulation provided a safe space for developing their social analysis. In an experiential way, students began to understand the potential power of democratic dialogue, but also that countries will not always act in good faith. Students cultivated a sense of how shared purpose can lead to change, which may or may not develop through different activities and teaching strategies. Further, students developed research skills needed to find critical perspectives that are silenced in the dominant narrative. By developing uncommon knowledge of their given country, students were able to see countries like Egypt, Iran, and Russia beyond their propagandistic interpretation in the West. This is not to say that these countries are blameless, but that they exist in particular ways when taken as part of a Western narrative. By embodying the perspectives of international positioning of their country, which policies would be taken up and the reasons countries align with certain ideological camps became clearer. Like countries, students aligned with political interests and asserted their power, which expanded the ways students considered many contemporary geo-political issues salient to the study of world politics. Therefore, Travis’s simulation fit Wright-Maley’s (2015) definition of the significant component of a successful simulation. Utilizing this framework reveals that students were able to reflect on real life processes. The UN deliberations and coalition building were quite similar to what occurs in life. Students were provided opportunities for unscripted and unexpected outcomes. The experience allowed them to negotiate their standing in the UN in ways they though would be most successful, which changed the nature of the simulation. However, the students also came to understand what Travis hoped to teach and were fully participating. Travis was also responsive to the well-being of his students, hoping that helping them see and understand this experience would help them become more deliberative and participatory civic agents. Travis demonstrated his critical pedagogical content knowledge by negotiating the lesson, revealing how the UN functions and expressing his consciousness to political systems. All these areas and ideas became foundational to the success of this simulation.
Caesar: A simulated democratic classroom toward a better society
Caesar utilized simulation as a way to help students to better understand their lives, power and social studies content. His simulations were sometimes impromptu and informed by the real world or classroom elements he observed. Consider the following exchange. His Cooperating Teacher received a question about law in Mexico versus law in the US. One of their students had just returned from visiting family in Mexico and asked,
The [United States] government is kinda like Mexico, but the U.S. had differences right?
Well, Mexico is okay with the corruption and the people don’t care in the same way we do.
The comment was difficult for the predominantly Latina/o students, many with ties to Mexico, to hear. Students looked dejected across the room but did not respond. Caesar decided to speak addressing the entire class, Well. . .what about the Lieutenant Governor of this state and other U.S. politicians? Plenty examples exist of the corruption of U.S. officials. What about the political fundraising system itself?
Caesar explained to me that that these “things need to be discussed,” especially when there are classroom power imbalances. He suggested simulations could combat “misinformed and racist ideas like these.”
A few weeks later, early in the spring semester of 2018, his students were learning about the US constitution. Problems arose when his Cooperating Teacher asked him to teach a lesson on democracy via a lecture-based PowerPoint she provided. In his journal he shared he felt that the lesson she gave him was not democratically appropriate. He wrote, “the hypocrisy my students observed was clear. I was asked to teach a lesson on democracy that was not democratic.” He noted this particular lesson had been “a classroom experience misaligned with the democratic principles we were teaching.”
The next day he mentioned, “the class was upset because they had been talking about democracy when the principal entered and removed one of their classmates for a dress code violation.” Referencing the principal after he left, the students said, “this is not very democratic!” He decided to make a pedagogical shift to attend to the alienation and anti-democratic behavior his students observed by developing a simulation in real time. Caesar thought through the lesson with students out loud. This was real, unscripted, participatory and related to students (Wright-Maley, 2015).
Caesar said, “We will develop a class constitution, based on what you know about the US constitution what do we need to do?” A student responded, “we need to have a separation of powers!” “Great!” responded Caesar. “What are the structures?” Caesar began feverishly writing on the whiteboard as students answered. One column had “structures” another had “ideas.” Students noted the other parts of the governmental structures. Caesar said, “The other social studies classes will be the states. . .if we change the constitution it will require a two-thirds vote from them.” He continued, “You the students will be Congress and propose laws, I will be the executive and sign or veto the laws. The Principal and the Cooperating Teacher (CT) will be the Supreme Court, so, you know, they can refer to the school rules.”
The simulation provided students with a sense of agency after describing how lessons had been un-democratic and alienating. Caesar’s approach to the simulation represented critical consciousness of his own power and the power relationships that existed in the school. In doing so, he demonstrated his ability to engage in pedagogical mediation to facilitate an experience with unexpected outcomes. His content knowledge about systems of governance and how they related to schooling structures allowed him to successfully develop the simulation. The simulation template was used in future in class discussions, allowing students to democratically discuss issues of concern at their school. In doing so, he was particularly attentive to the wellbeing of his students, their relation to the classroom material and others with whom they interacted (Wright-Maley, 2015).
Many critically conscious social studies teachers like Caesar are understand that dialogical and student-centered instruction are important aspects of relational classroom power. Teacher-student interactions like these can become the “basis for thinking more critically about the impact of our assumptions, values, and actions on others. Such practice . . .helps us understand how we constitute our realities and identities in relational ways and how we can develop more collaborat[ion]” (Cunliffe, 2016: 747). Coming to understand his students, implementing pedagogical changes after reflecting on himself and the situation made Caesar a unique and critical social studies teacher, fostering a critical consciousness at a variety of levels including naive transitivity and critical transitivity (Freire, 2005).
Caesar also utilized planned simulations to helped students recognize limitations in historical narratives. In a lesson about the French and Indian War, students were given a random card, which represented the role of an Indigenous person, a British colonist or French colonist or a warrior. I heard comments like, “I am actually part Cherokee,” and “I wanted to be. . .” Excitedly, the class went to the tennis court where Britain, the Atlantic Ocean and the Eastern half of North America were outlined in chalk. The net on the court represented the Appalachian Mountains and was separating the British colonies from the rest of the continent. British and French outposts and the colonies were outlined with tape. British colonists started in Britain where they outlined the island until it had all been claimed, signified by filling it in with chalk.
The colonists were then asked to cross the Atlantic and were told they could now do this East of the mountains. When he said go, students ran to new areas and feverishly began drawing on the court until they ran into other students’ areas. Naturally some began saying things like, “this is my area, I got here first!” Others responded, “This is French territory!” Other, more aggressive students colored over claimed student’s territory. If another British person claimed land, they could play rock paper scissors to settle the dispute. If it were an Indigenous person, this would be rock paper scissors to the (simulated) death. When students “died” they went to Caesar for a new identity. When the Eastern land was taken, the teacher explained the French land west of the Appalachian Mountains (tennis net) was now “up for grabs.” Indigenous communities were forced to take sides with either the French or English. As they continued, it became clear to the students that the rules were unfair. One student said, “there is no way the Indians can win. . .they either choose a side or loose.” Several students played by the rules and were only able to go so far. Students again played “rock paper scissors” to settle border disputes. Caesar had indeed manipulated the game so the British would win. As the simulation ended, Indigenous peoples who chose to support the British were given lands West of the Appalachians. Cesar then simulated the US taking ownership of all the land.
While helpful in coming to understand particular historical events, the second simulation only partially aligns with Wright-Maley’s simulation criteria (2015). In a way, the students engaged in real life processes, in that they were asked to make decisions about their simulated character’s fate. The simulation demonstrated the colonial ethos and political reality of the time. Students were also full participants in the experience, however, there was limited opportunity for the simulation to flow in unscripted and unexpected directions, nor was there any particular attention to the student’s wellbeing other than the presentation of facts in an interesting way.
Importantly, however, the simulation opened up opportunities for experiences that would lead to important conversations about power. After the lesson, Caesar developed spaces for dialogue and deliberation. He began by telling students a little about the fate of the Indigenous peoples, pointing out their strange dismissal in the simulation. The class debrief revealed issues of identity, encouraged questions about power and the genocidal colonial/US relations with Indigenous peoples. Students discussed their particular role, how groups must have felt and the difficulty in taking sides and the cruelty of the experience. These conversations led to discussions of democracy, colonization, who is considered a citizen, how citizenship is taken up and how borders and power inform these issues. Consider the following exchange after both simulations.
How is this like the border between the US and Mexico?
I go into White places and I feel like they don’t like me.
It’s like with us [Latino/as], at school we are not really given as much as other kids.
Exactly! We used to be in Mexico [referring to the US state we were in], but now people say we are illegals.
Though it was perhaps not the best example of learning the facts and testable knowledge of the French and Indian War, the experience provided space for empathy, critical thought and excitement and demonstrated Caesar’s strong pedagogical content knowledge (e.g. Schweber, 2003, 2004).
Students were very engaged in both simulated experiences, were able to dialogue in meaningful ways about the realities of the experiences and developed a critical consciousness to how coercive power helped shape the foundations of the United States. The lesson became fertile ground for discussing issues of power, ownership and symbolic and physical borders. Caesar said of the debrief, “often students will take issues further in lessons when I give them space for dialogue and deliberation. So part of this lesson was about giving space to bring issues up.”
Importantly, both simulations led to fruitful discussions of power relations including the hypocrisy of the founding father claims of a democratic society, owning slaves, displacing Indigenous peoples and maintaining such opulent wealth- all examples of critical consciousness. The simulated lesson also targeted the systemic and pervasive nature of US hegemony. Students were later able to identify contemporary examples of power, which demonstrated their own ability to critically analyze certain social relations. The lesson also demonstrated Caesar’s pedagogical ability to teach a meaningful lesson while clearly demonstrating that he understood histories that he was presenting.
Implications
Findings from this study reveal several important implications for social studies teachers and teacher educators. Simulations that allow students to navigate systems of power, embody democratic relationships and challenge oppressive systems can be important components of a critical and humanizing social studies pedagogy. However, teachers must be very thoughtful in how they use simulation to reveal power relations and it is imperative that social studies teachers and teacher educators consider the dynamic relationship between their classroom and the broader world. In doing so, they surmount the limitations on verisimilitude that are characteristic of traditional social studies simulations. Additionally, in order to supersede the inherent boundaries of simulations as a classroom practice, efforts to build on simulations to achieve classroom praxis will require a thorough analysis of the relationship between theory and action in the simulation process itself.
We suggest that Wright-Maley’s (2015) framework is important for examining simulations, though as our participants demonstrated, these can also serve as shared hermeneutics through which students might come to understand ideas and experiences beyond the classroom and model. Wright-Maley (2015) refers to verisimilitude, or the appearance of being true and real as an essential component of simulations in social studies, which was an element integral to the simulations in this study because of the teacher’s ability to reveal problematic relations and interpretations in many subject areas. As Wright-Maley writes, the meaning that students take from simulations “can become muddled as simulations become increasingly complicated” (p. 67). Giving an example of assigning groups to play a
In David Ignatow’s (2011) poem
These teachers were able to demonstrate how the intersections of strong pedagogical content knowledge and critical consciousness shape the ways particular lessons will unfold. Because of this, simulations were meaningful (DiCamillo and Gradwell, 2012, 2013), had both critical and instructional purpose (Magill and Rodriguez, 2015B; Dack et al., 2016) and taught students’ valuable civic skills, perceptions, and dispositions toward more transformational civic identities (Lo, 2017). Further, in some cases, the simulations helped students examine problems, understand relationships and pose socially informed questions (Cotton et al., 1997) in addition to facilitating a more experiential classroom (Dack et al., 2016). However, without strong pedagogical content knowledge, critical consciousness and purpose it would be easy to see teachers succumb to the pitfalls of social studies simulations (Anonymous, et al., 2019).
Ultimately, shared experience is vital for developing a hermeneutic by which a group of people can understand the classroom and a bit more about social world. Like historical thinking (Seixas and Peck, 2004), simulations can develop a sense of empathy as participants are asked to read the world from different social perspectives and understand why historical actors behave as they do. They can be shared spaces to consider broader ideas even when simulated experiences themselves are not purely factual. As teacher educators we might consider the ways simulation serve as artifacts through which particular types of learning can emerge. We might also be more explicit about providing simulation examples, models and frameworks. When framed critically, these experiences have the power to reveal how powerful forces frame the ideological contexts in which we operate, helping to reveal the problems within the narratives put forth by the nation state (VanSledright, 2002). Therefore, critical simulations can provide both a conceptual space for understanding a critical perspective and an experience by which students begin to take agency and informed actions.
Conclusion
Knowles and Theobald (2013) find role-playing and simulations are perhaps the least common methods of social studies instruction and that these collaborative experiences are often reserved for advanced classes. However, there is much that can be gained for many students if offered the opportunities to engage in real world simulations within classroom spaces. Students, “have to critically examine the information that they have acquired, discern what is relevant, and interact with peers to solve a problem with little direction. . .a deeper understanding of the process that is being simulated through self-directed problem solving” (Pagnotti and Russell, 2015: 282).
For social studies teacher educators concerned with developing a humanizing teacher education framework (Blevins and Talbert, 2015) these efforts are vital to ensuring pre-service teachers will focus on student experiences, critique official knowledge and frame critical questions. The results of this study indicate that the engagement, dialogue and critique that resulted from these critical simulations were important steps on the path to a transformative, humanizing social studies educational experience.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
