The purpose of this study was to ascertain the characteristics of social studies identified by graduating preservice students. The method of study involved taped interviews using a standard interview schedule. Subjects were all Rutgers students who had completed social studies student teaching during 1977-78. Results showed a variety among students in definition, purpose, and content of social studies education. Six concerns related to these results were raised.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarrR.BarthJ.SherraisS.Defining the social studies (Bulletin 51). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977.
2.
BrubakerD.Alternative directions for the social studies. Scranton, PA: International Textbook, 1967.
3.
BrubakerD.SimonL.WilliamsJ.A conceptual framework for social studies curriculum and instruction. Social Education, 1977, 41, (3), 201-205.
4.
GrossR.The status of the social studies in the public schools of the United States. Social Education, 1977, 41, (3), 194-200.
5.
HuntM.MetcalfM.Teaching high school social studies (2nd Edition). New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
6.
JarolimekJ.The status of social studies education: 8 case studies. Social Education, 1977, 41, (3), 574-601.
7.
KuhnT.The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd Edition, Vol. 1, No. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
8.
MorrissettI.Preferred approaches to the teaching of social studies. Social Education, 1977, 41, (3), 206-209.
9.
>Morrissett I.Citizenship, social scudles and the academician. Social Education, 1979, 43, (1),12-17.
10.
ShaverJ. (Ed.). Bulldlng rationales for citizenship education (Bulletin 52). Washington, DC: National Council for Che Social Studies, 1977.
11.
ShaverJ., DavisO.HelbumSThe status of social studies: Impressions from 3 NSF studies. Social Education, 1979, 43, (2), 151-153.
