Teaching for Results at the expense of Understanding

 Botswana’s education system is increasingly caught in a paradox. On the one hand, it aims to produce critical thinkers and capable citizens. On the other, it has become a system largely driven by examination performance and envied statistical ABC % pass rates. While achieving high academic results is not inherently problematic, the overemphasis on grades has led to a culture where teaching to the test overshadows teaching for understanding. As a result, learners in formative levels of education may leave school with certificates in hand but without the competencies needed for tertiary education, the workplace, or even active citizenship.

This growing divide between educational policy ideals and classroom realities contradicts Botswana’s foundational vision for education. To major policies: the 1977 Education for Kagisano and Revised National Policy on Education of 1994 set the tone to guide educational development throughout the years. They emphasized holistic development through learner centered pedagogy, critical thinking, problem-solving and the preparation of learners for life and responsible citizenship. Accordingly, educational knowledge should develop positive moral attitudes and intellectual skills of the individual and not merely produce high test scores.

Subject syllabi and curriculum frameworks also align with this vision. For instance, the aims of subjects such as Agriculture, Religious & Moral Education and Social Studies explicitly encourage inquiry, ethical reasoning, decision-making and the application of knowledge to interpret real life situations. Teaching approaches recommended across syllabi include group work, research projects, debates, simulations and community based activities. These methods are designed to engage learners in deeper understanding rather than superficial memorization.

However, the reality in schools often diverges from these recommendations. In practice, many educators feel constrained by time, syllabi coverage demands and the high stakes nature of national examinations such as PSLE, JCE and BGCSE. My experience and observations show that a higher number of teachers primarily rely on past exam papers and textbook drills. This is indicative of a pressure to produce good results which consequently acts as a major deterrent to learner-centered teaching pedagogies. In the end, there exists a significant mismatch between the aims of education and the dominant classroom practices.

This dissonance is exacerbated by the Performance Management System (PMS) and related appraisal mechanisms, which heavily link teacher advancement to learner performance on standardized assessments. Promotions and recognition are often tied to the number of students achieving A–C grades. In many schools, this has bred a competitive atmosphere where teachers are reluctant to collaborate or share innovative methods for fear of losing their “edge.” While accountability is important, an overly results-driven model can distort teaching priorities and reduce education to a race for numbers.

The fallout of this system is most apparent when learners transition to the next level of education. It has become a transitional outcry. Some Junior secondary educators grapple with learners who can’t analyze and synthesize concepts taught. The same is relative to Senior secondary educators with the group they inherit from the Junior secondary level. At tertiary institutions, lecturers frequently observe that incoming students struggle with independent learning, analytical writing, and practical problem-solving. Despite strong academic records on paper, many lack the depth of understanding necessary to engage with complex concepts or interdisciplinary tasks.

The workplace and broader society are not immune from these shortcomings. Employers routinely lament that graduates may possess qualifications but are ill-prepared for tasks requiring initiative, teamwork and adaptability. The current education culture risks producing individuals who are “book smart” but life-illiterate and unable to apply their learning meaningfully in real-world contexts, whether as employees, entrepreneurs or citizens.

This is not to imply that there are no efforts to bridge this gap. However, unless reforms are matched by changes in teacher evaluation, public attitudes and examination systems, they are unlikely to gain meaningful traction. Therein lies the central contradiction: the curriculum speaks the language of transformation, but the assessment system speaks the language of conformity to score high marks.

If Botswana is to realize the full promise of its educational policy aspirations, it must realign its educational practice with its philosophical vision. This includes rethinking how teachers are supported and appraised, how learners are assessed and how success is defined. The Teaching Service Management (TSM), Botswana Examinations Council (BEC), and the Ministry of Basic Education and Child Welfare (MBE&CW) must create space for innovation, cooperation and depth. They must reward educators not just for outcomes, but for pedagogical excellence and learner transformation.

In conclusion, Botswana’s education system must choose whether it continues to prioritize appearances of success or whether it commits to education that truly empowers. The time has come to do the needful for education policy. Only then will Botswana graduate learners who are not only equipped for exams, but for life.

 

The place of citizenship education in the primary school curriculum in Botswana

Introduction

The essay would like to argue succinctly that indeed citizenship education has a place in the primary school curriculum in Botswana as a part of the global village and in any other part of the world. The paper will unfold with the discussion of what citizenship entails, global perception of citizenship, merits supporting the teaching of citizenship education and the backbreaking challenges that educators face when teaching the concept.

Citizenship

From the traditional Greek and Roman republics, citizenship has meant involvement in public affairs by those who had the liberties of citizens. In modern times, however, democratic ideas have led it to include human emancipation, elections and transparent government processes (Crick, 1998). This goes on to prove that citizenship has transformed over the years. According to Hammet and Staeheli (2009) citizenship in abstract terms now includes ideals of the healthy, active, productive and responsible citizen. It is thus imperative to mention that the concept citizenship encompasses a range of complex themes; competency, responsible and active community participation (Hall, Coffey & Williamson, 2010). In Starkey (2000) these themes may vary from one country to another depending on their unique aspirations guided by history and the future of its citizenry. For example, the British focus on creating a diverse society founded on multicultural citizenship whilst the French aim at integrating individuals into a predetermined and existing republican framework.

Citizenship education

Because citizenship is an important concept to individuals, societies, countries and the global world, it thus became logic that there be citizenship education either formally or informally. Boadu (2013) highlight that “citizenship education implies being educated to become an efficient member of one’s immediate environment and the general human community, to develop a commitment to work effectively with diverse people and to accept differences in cultures and values” (p.138). Implicit in the above quote is the notion that citizenship can be taught and learned. Kerr (1999) posit that citizenship education is construed broadly to encompass the preparation of young people for their roles and responsibilities as citizens and in  particular, the role of education through schooling, teaching and learning in that preparatory process (Magadu, 2012).

Further, Boadu (2013) in his study on citizenship in Ghana allude that citizenship education is a subject that aims at preparing competent, reflective, concerned and participatory citizens who will contribute to the development of their community and country in the spirit of patriotism and democracy.

The place of citizenship education in the curriculum

The place of citizenship education in the school curriculum has never been disputed to a level where it can be scrapped off the curriculum as having failed dismally at least according to the literature available to this essay and more so that each society has a view of its ideal citizen. Thus, “the citizen of a state should always be educated to suit the constitution of their state”, Aristotle (as cited in, Davies, Evans & Reid, 2010). This being true, we must in addition move towards preparing native citizens for global citizenship precipitated by the continued growing interconnectedness of the world (Mhlauli, 2014).

Citizenship education has a place in the curriculum especially for countries that have traditionally been under the rule of others, colonization, as it is the case with most African countries which were predominantly colonized by the Europeans. There are also countries that have sought their autonomy from others like Singapore did from Malaysia (Sim, 2005) and the Republic of Ireland from the British (Smith, 2003). In view of the above historical events, citizenship education is necessary to emancipate the indigenous people from colonial hangover to being autonomous and sovereign. It is through the teaching of citizenship education that the school curriculum can provide the knowledge, skills, attitudes and dispositions that prepares them for self-rule, citizenship participation and peace. This assertion is made on the grounds that in most cases independence was not handed on a silver platter to all, some countries had to persevere, persist, endeavor and fight due to disagreement between themselves as the ruled and the ruler (Keller, 1995). Moreover, Farahani (2014) postulate that today’s crisis, especially war, environmental pollution, terrorism and nuclear proliferation are challenging the peace and security of the world. Many of these crisis are consequently as a result of misunderstandings and lack of familiarity of cultures with one another. Clearly these crisis are solvable through citizenship education which further cement its place in the curriculum. In short, David and Hellen (2002) assert that citizenship education is perhaps needed more than ever to provide a sense of purpose, solidarity and guidance in a fragmented and changing world.

As in Botswana, England and Sweden, voter apathy among the youth is a concern. It appears to the observers that contemporary politics in most societies increasingly fail to capture the interest and attention of the young citizenry who are skeptical of bogus politicians and party affiliation and are increasingly unlikely to vote (Bennett, 2007; Mpabanga, 2000) an uncongenial state of affairs which Kerr (1999) term “democratic deficit” that which can be corrected through educating for citizenship by schools. Societal ills like voter apathy in democratic societies obviously point to the notion that citizenship education has a place in the curriculum. In addition, Bennett (2007) highlight that it was in the midst and severity of youth voting decline in Britain that prompted the government to  commission the Crick Report of (1998) which called for compulsory civics education in secondary schools. Accordingly, citizenship education and the teaching of democracy are important for both the school and life of the nation that there must be statutory requirement for schools that it is part of the entitlement of every child in Britain (Crick, 1998). Essentially, if citizenship education is seen as valuable by well-established states in international circles, then we as developing countries should borrow from their policies. However, in borrowing, we should be wary of duplicating even the very things that are not congruent and in tandem with our practices. Hence, policy borrowing is a delicate process which should consider local values (Haplin & Troyna, 2010).

A lot of countries globally seem to moving towards democratic governance. This global trend has seen the continued cooperation between individual countries, regions, continentally and to a greater extent globally. Democratic practices in most cases are guided by liberties for all humans. Freedom of movement is one such right enjoyed by people and they have managed to travel and settle in other parts of the world permanently assimilating into the cultural groups and identities hitherto unknown to them. According to Banks (as citied in Banks, 2008) the cultural and group uniqueness become imperative in multicultural democratic societies. As such students need to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes that will enable them to function well in a globalized community. Hence, in addition, Banks (2001) reiterate that global citizens need a new kind of citizenship education through multicultural citizenship education enabling them to acquire a delicate balance between cultural, national and global identification. Even though Banks advancement in part talks of multiculturalism, which is not the focus of this essay, the bulk of his pronouncement axis on citizenship education, which is discussed herein as having an eternal place in the school curriculum.

Borrowing from the (Crick Report of 1998; section 1. 5) in paraphrased words to further bolster the need for citizenship education, it is stated that, the concept is needed to change the political culture of a country both nationally and locally for people to think of themselves as active citizens willing, able and equipped to have an influence in public life with critical capabilities. If citizenship education can aim for the above, then its presence and importance in the school curriculum need not be overemphasized because the suggested outcome is the very citizen we need in this global world, more than ever before.

If indeed citizenship education should be an entitlement for every child as insinuated by the Crick Report of 1998, then we should catch them young and educate them henceforth about citizenship. As Smith (2003) emphasize there is evidence to suggest that the foundations of a divided society begins at an early age. So, not only is it important to include a thorough understanding of citizenship education principles like human rights and appreciation of diversity in the curriculum as a basis for strengthening a democratic culture, it may also provide a base for national unity and diversity.

This part of the essay has shown that citizenship education has a place in the school curriculum because it can be a vehicle to ride on towards global peace, change political landscapes, fostering democracy and liberating people of the world. It is said that Botswana finds herself in a period of history when social attitudes and values around the world are changing at an unprecedented rate. In the future, the people of Botswana and elsewhere will need to adapt to the challenge of the global society whilst retaining the positive aspects of their cultural values that distinguish them from other countries (Presidential Task Group, 1997). Thus, it is possible to achieve the above through citizenship education in the school curriculum.

The challenges of teaching citizenship education

Based on the assumption that citizenship education has a place in the school curriculum, schools are thus seen as the practice grounds for citizenship development. However, the effectiveness of this obligation is still unclear (Goboers, Geijsel, Admiraal & Dam, 2013) mainly because citizenship education teachers are faced with a plethora of challenges which will be discussed in greater detail below.

To start with, misunderstandings often arise in the discussion of citizenship education because the same language means different things to different people. In short, there is no fixed answer or definition to the concept (David & Hellen, 2002; Hall, Coffey & Williamson, 2010; Kerr & Cleaver, 2004). Phrases such as “the educated citizen” or “responsible citizenship” often touted as outcomes of citizenship education, operate as educational slogans in that they are “systematically ambiguous” and often represent particular political interest (Komisar & Mcclellan, 1961; Popkewitz, 1980 as cited in Sears & Hughes, 1996). These misunderstandings crop up rhetorically in research and debates but they are also relative to the classroom thus implying that the teaching of the concept is cumbersome on the part of both educators and learners who are the very people the curriculum targets.

Further discussing the lack thereof a universally accepted agreement on what citizenship education is and entails (David & Hellen, 2002) allude that schools and teachers cannot be possibly expected to prepare young people for adult life as citizens without a complete and agreed position and  drift that citizenship education should come from. To the classroom teacher, the absence of agreement gives rise to various interpretations that may otherwise be correct or incongruent to reality. An antithesis to this anomaly will be to have a globally accepted stance on the issue by scholars and most importantly for education policy, curriculum and society to ease up the burden on educators.

In his Zimbabwean study on citizenship education challenges, Tshabangu (2006) reveal that “schools are highly examination centered and tend to marginalize non-examinable subjects” (p.56). It is worth noting that in some countries citizenship education is taught as a separate subject whilst in some instances it is infused into other curriculum subjects like social studies in the guise of nation building. It must also be noted that, citizenship education tends to be pushed to fore if it is infused into examinable subjects like social studies in Botswana. On the other hand, when the subject is not examined like in Singapore and Italy (Kerr, 1999) and in Britain at the advice of the Crick Report of 1998, teachers’ consciously and unconsciously push it to the periphery and concentrate more on examinable subjects. Paradoxically, the latter instance given above defeats the overriding purpose of the social studies which is citizenship education Barr, Barth and Shemis (as cited in Sim, 2005) as opposed to the former.

A different twist of events with regards to assessment crops in with Pike (2007) insisting that his study has found out varied views on assessment of citizenship education with the cohort that is against assessment stating that it should not be introduced into this area because at the end of the day the most important assessment is whether they do anything with what they learn upon graduation and it is practically impossible to measure that in quantifiable terms. This implies that those teaching citizenship education have a problem of actually measuring if their efforts are bearing fruit or it is just a hopeless pursuit (David & Hellen, 2002).

The other challenge of teaching citizenship education as beheld by developing countries especially in Africa is lack of Information and Technology for both leaners and teachers to use. Good citizenship which we aspire for should be preceded by teaching the young about local before international issues. What is lacking and that which makes us fail to fit into the interconnected world puzzle as individuals is lack of the international element seen or taught effectively using information and technology. There is a need to involve technology in the teaching of social studies (Department of Curriculum Development & Evaluation, 2005), however, supporting technological equipment is at an all-time low especially in remote areas. To counter this global isolation created by lack of technology, Bennett (2007) lament that the learning environment for citizenship education must be designed to appeal to the affinity for networks and communities of interest. Online interactive technology enable citizenship education learners to engage with and contribute to the emerging understanding of public issues like democratic participation (Blevins, LeCompte & Wells, 2014; Kerr, 1999; Semela, Bohl & Kleinknect, 2012). This will positively help teachers to depart from the traditional textbook based citizenship education which lacks the international element (Kerr, 1999).

Curriculum developers in most countries under the supervision of politicians of the incumbent governments develop citizenship education syllabi and content which according to Bennett (2007) are based on highly conventional citizenship models which center on the idea of the “dutiful citizen” (DC) as opposed to the “self-Actualizing Citizen” (AC). The former is expected to learn the basic government and political institutions, be informed about issues and make responsible voting choices whereas the latter conversely sees his political commitment and involvement highly personal and contributing to the personal life, social recognition and esteem and friendship relations. Hence the challenge for teachers then is offering a less meaningful and appealing citizenship education

Compounding the challenges inherent in teaching citizenship education like the AC and DC is that, there are major tensions countries face in approaching citizenship education namely; the extent to which it is possible to identify, agree and articulate the values and dispositions which undergird citizenship. The tension hinges on the answer to the simple question; is citizenship “value explicit” or “value neutral”. The former promotes distinct values that are part of a broader nationally accepted system of public values and beliefs like in Singapore and Korea whilst the latter is concerned with a neutral stand on values and controversial issues leaving the decision to the individual (Kerr, 1999). Moreover, Mclaughlin (as cited in Kerr, 1999) brings up another challenging debate about the balance between the “public” and “private” dimensions of citizenship education. The assertion is such that the “public” is termed “thick” implying citizenship education has a bigger role for education as opposed to the notion of the “thin” meaning that citizenship education has a lesser role to play. From a different perspective, these differences and debates may appear outside the classroom issues, but it is imperative to state in explicit terms that, lack of a clear drift which citizenship dimension to take makes the teaching of the concept difficult for educators. The concquence of which is citizenship education gets a lower status, low priority and a less appealing area to learners just like social studies as a school subject housing citizenship education (Dube, 2009).

It is unfortunate that learners of citizenship education in primary schools in Ghana and Malawi have a low level of literacy and as such have difficulties in reading and understanding curriculum materials like textbooks (Boadu, 2013). This problem is not only experienced by Malawians and Ghanaians, a similar problem where content, concepts and terminology was incomprehensible to learners was revealed in Botswana (Dube & Moffat, 2009). Even though their study had Cultural Studies as a lower primary school subject as its centrality, it is still relevant to this discussion taking cognizance of the fact that culture is also a facet of citizenship education. Teachers of citizenship education thus find themselves in a tight corner with their backs against the wall and resort to lecturing or code switching when teaching.

Pedagogically there also appear to be a challenge as Davaies, Evans & Reid (2010) emphatically state “although national citizenship itself is so old to be almost outdated, citizenship education is a new area. As such it does not yet have a tradition or pedagogy of its own” (p.83). The accusation of citizenship education as a new concept and not having a tradition is a discussion for another day, what excites this essay in outlining the challenges of teaching the concept is the lack of an established pedagogy because obviously educators find themselves in trial and error situations where methods of teaching may actually bring different results in different settings.

The other challenge which incorporate the issue of pedagogy is that, in Botswana like in many other countries, there is no specific initial and in-service training for teachers on citizenship education. Majority of teachers’ are trained in closely related subjects like geography, religious education and social studies (Kerr, 1999; Starkey, 2000). This presages a situation whereby innocent recipients of education are left at the mercy of generalist educators as opposed to the preferred specialists. The poor generalists unescapably teach concepts that they are not competent and confident in (Robbins, Francis & Elliot, 2001) complicated by insufficient pedagogical and content knowledge which are critical to teaching and the cadre (Turner-Bisset, 1999). To make up for lack thereof training, Mhlauli (2011) suggest that a study and evaluation of teacher education programs is eminent to find out if mega trends of global citizenship education are incorporated therein. In addition to restructuring pre-service training of teachers, there is need to boost in-service training of practicing teachers in the field which is already patchy (Crick, 1998; Ersoy, 2010; Hillburn & Maguth, 2014; Kerr, 1999; Mhlauli, 2011).

It is crystal clear that citizenship education educators are not having it easy as implementing agents on the ground. They face a superfluity of challenges like insufficient training, shortage of support technological material, political influence and ambiguity of concepts and dimensions.

Conclusion

This essay has shown that citizenship education which is what social studies purports to do, is concerned with equipping citizens with the knowledge, skills, attitude, values and dispositions needed to survive in their native communities and within the interconnected global world. Citizenship education clearly has an eternal place in the school curriculum because countries will eternally have citizens from all parts of the world with different cultures and identities, the need for people to live in peace, unity and diversity shall never cease. Despite all the ululation accorded citizenship education, its’ teaching and learning has however been marred by challenges which educators grapple with daily including but not limited to ambiguity, politics, insufficient training cultural differences locally and globally.

References

Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implication for teacher education.          Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5-16. DOI: 10.1177/0022487101052001002

Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity and citizenship education in a global age.    Education Research, 37(3), 129-139. DOI: 10.3102/001318317501

Bennett, L. W. (2007). Civic learning in changing democracies: Challenges for citizenship          education and Civic Education. London. Routledge.

Blevins, B., LeCompte, K. & Wells, S. (2014). Citizenship education goes digital. The Journal of             Social Studies Research, 38, 33-44.

Boadu, K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions on the importance of teaching citizenship education to   primary school children in Cape Coast, Ghana. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(2), 137- 147.

Crick, B. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democratic skills: Final Report of             the Advisory Group on Citizenship. London. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority            (QCA).

David, S. & Hellen, L. (2002). Citizenship and the curriculum. International perspectives on        curriculum studies. Greenwood Publishing Group. EBook, 1530-5465. ISBN13:          01780313011870

Davies, I., Evans, M. & Reid, A. (2010). Globalizing citizenship education: A critique of “global             education” and “citizenship education”. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66-            89. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-85272005.00248.x

Dube, O. (2009). Addressing controversial issues through social studies: Making social studies                come alive. European Journal of Educational Studies, 1(1), 25-34.

Dube, O. & Moffat, P. (2009). The Teaching and Learning of Cultural Studies at Lower School   Level in Botswana. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3 (1),    1-12.

Ersoy, A. F. (2010). Teacher candidates’ views on the controversial issues incorporated into their                          courses in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 323-334.

Farahani, M. F. (2014). Role of global citizenship education in world peace and security. Social   and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 934-938. DOI: 10.1016/jsbspro.2014.01.323

Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Admiraal, W. & Dam, G. (2013). Review of the effects of citizenship      education. Educational Research Review, 9, 158-173.

Hall, T., Coffey, A. & Wiliamson, H. (2010). Self, space and place: Youth identities and citizenship. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(4), 501-513. DOI:     10.1080/014259699995236

Haplin, D. & Troyna, B. (2010). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory   and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451-461. DOI:   10.1080/0305006032000162020

Hammet, D. & Staeheli, L. A. (2009). Citizenship education in South Africa: A report to schools.                          University of Witwatersrand.

Hillburn, J. & Maguth, B. M. (2014). Spatial citizenship education: Civics teachers’ instructional                          priorities and approaches. Journal of Social Studies Research. Retrieved from                          http://dx.doi.org/10.1016

Keller, E. J. (1995. Decolonization, independence and the failure of politics in Africa. Martin, P. & O’meara, P. (Eds.). Bloomington. Indiana University.

Kerr, D. (1999). Citizenship education: An international comparison. National Foundation for     Educational Research (NFER). Retrieved from http://nationalarchives.gov.uk

Kerr, D. & Cleaver, E. (2004). Citizenship education longitudinal study: Literature review-          citizenship education one year on-What does it mean? Emerging definitions and          approaches in the first year of national curriculum citizenship in England. National           Foundation for Research in England.

Magadu, S. (2012). Citizenship education in Zimbabwe: Challenges and prospects. Journal of      Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(4), 179-181.

Mhlauli, M. B. (2014). Teaching World Mindedness in Social Studies Classrooms in Primary      Schools in Botswana: Reality or Illusion? International Research in Education,           2(1), 51-72.

Mhlauli, M. B. (2011). Understanding the social studies teachers’ experiences: Conceptions of     citizenship education in Botswana. International Journal of Scientific Research in       Education, 4(3&4), 165-180.

Mpabanga, D. (2000). Declining voter participation in Botswana. Trends and patterns. Botswana                          Journal African studies, 14(1), 47-58.

Pike, M. A. (2007). The state and citizenship education in England: A curriculum for subjects or citizens? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(4), 471-489. DOI:           10.1080/0220270701230370

Presidential Task Group for a Long Term Vision for Botswana. (1997). Long term vision for        Botswana. Gaborone, Botswana: Government Printer.

Robbinson, M., Francis, L. J. & Elliot, E. (2001). Attitudes towards education for global   citizenship among trainee teachers. Research in Education. No. 64.

Sears, A. M. & Hughes, A. S. (1996). Citizenship education and current educational reform.         Canadian Journal of Education, 21(2), 123-142.

Semela, T., Bohl, T. & Kleinknect, M. (2012). Civic education in Ethopian schools: Adopted      paradigms, instructional technology and democratic citizenship in a multicultural         context. International Journal of Education and Development, 33, 156-164.

Sim, B. (2005). Citizenship education and social studies in Singapore: A national agenda.                          International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1(1), 58-69.

Smith, A. (2003). Citizenship education in Northern Ireland: Beyond national identity. Cambridge                          Journal of Education, 33(1), 15-31.

Starkey, H. (2000). Citizenship education in France and Britain; Evolving theories and practices.             The Curriculum Journal, 11(1), 39-54.

Tshabangu, I. P. (2006). Student participation and responsible citizenship in a non-polyarchy: An                          evaluation of challenges facing Zimbabwe’s schools. International Education       Journal, 7(1), 56-65.

Turner-Bisset, D. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Education Research                          Journal, 25(1), 39-55.

Should Social Studies be studied separately and other related fields and not as an integrated curriculum?

Introduction

It is postulated by Pistill (2012) that Social Studies should be studied separately in form of Geography, Economics, History, Political Science and other related fields and not as an integrated curriculum. The status quo and traditional approach to teaching and learning of social studies is through an integrated approach, which is questioned by the afore stated assertion. The assertion may just be propagated by radical thinkers, exams, jobs becoming specialized, revolutionists and evolutionists in education circles who may otherwise be positively or negatively advised by research, personal experiences, experimentation and the natural need for change (Gleeson & Whitty, 1976; Lawton & Dufour, 1973). However, it is the stern position of this essay that studying social studies in its current integrated approach serves the purpose than it would be when studied separately.

Considering that there is an ongoing assault on social studies (Singer, 2014) this essay will initially argue against this assertion by; shedding some light on what social studies is, what it purports to do, integration or interdisciplinary approach, international and African position and timeline on integration and lastly advance the associative arguments undergirding the position of this essay that social studies should not be independent of the disciplines it has traditionally partnered with in pursuit of its goals.

Social studies and its inherent goal

According to Salia-Bao (1990) the meaning of social studies differs from one country to another depending on how they view it and what they hope to achieve by teaching it. Albeit the differences suggested above, it is generally construed as an integrated, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary course of the study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence and help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions as citizens of culturally diverse, democratic society in an inter dependent world (Adeyemi as cited in Adeyemi, 2010; National Council of the Social Studies, 1992). It does so within the auspices of History, Geography, Economics, Civics and Anthropology as well as the arts (Department of Curriculum Development & Evaluation, 2010; Department of Curriculum Development & Evaluation, 1990; Salia-Bao, 1990). Its origins are traced to the United States of America where the term was first used (Okoth & Ndaloh, 2008), the chief goal of which is citizenship education (Boadu, 2013; Crick, 1998; Kerr, 1999) and as such every possible subject is used to help towards this goal in an integrated and interdisciplinary approach (Kotchhar, 1984).

Integration or interdisciplinary approach

In differentiating between the two, literature is inconsistent with concepts like integrated, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary often confusing, resulting in educators misconstruing them as interchangeable (Lintner, 2013). On the one hand, through the interdisciplinary approach some people view social studies as a subject that borrows ideas and concepts from other disciplines to clarify issues because one discipline may not be sufficient to explain a phenomena (Adeyemi as cited in Adeyemi, 2010). With integration or interdisciplinary approach, the curriculum is organized around common learning disciplines across the curriculum. It is imperative to make sure that connections and organization are congruent to real life situations, and are skill and knowledge based (Drake & Burns, 2004). In addition Forgarty and Stoehr (1991) allude that the patterns and designs of integration should use the basic elements of each discipline matching subjects for overlaps in topics and concepts. Thus (Hargreaves & More; Parker as cited in Holloway & Chiodo, 2009) emphasise that the curriculum then becomes more meaningful in the lives of the students and integration advances the relevance of classroom learning. Be that as it may, the common denominator here is that facts, generalization, concepts and disciplines are interwoven in the social studies.

International position and timeline on social studies integration

It is globally construed that social studies curriculum is composed of discrete subject areas, with a primary focus on history and to a lesser degree, Geography and Civics completing the triumvirate. The 1893 Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies advocated for an interdisciplinary approach in the social sciences. By 1916, the National Education Association (NEA) on the social studies propelled an interdisciplinary course of instruction based on the social studies. When the NEA 1916 established social studies as the name of the content area, it presented the scope and sequence that is still in use to date. The 1918 Cardinal Principles on Secondary Education would have the main aim of social studies as cultivation of good citizens. The afore developments were thus the continued mission and vision of the National Council of the Social Studies (NCSS) upon its formation in 1921 (Okoth & Ndaloh, 2008; Womack, 1966; www.stateuniversity.com). The above shows that social studies timeline internationally has evolved and seen much debates in its pursuit for good citizenship.

African position and timeline on social studies integration

The African Social Studies Program (ASSP) was unitedly formed by African countries in 1967, about four decades after the global social studies watchdog, the National Council of the Social Studies (NCSS) was established. In the long run it changed to the acronym ASSEP because it had added the environmental education component (Adeyemi, 2010). According to Munyandi-Mutebi (as cited in African Social Studies Program, 1984) the fledging organization wanted to promote curriculum development, research and development of new materials. By the late 1960s, new approaches to the colonially inherited History and Geography courses became known in Africa as Social Studies (Merryfeild, 1988). The Mombasa Conference of August 1968 which was preceded by the formation of the ASSP in 1967 the previous year consisting of African educators, British and American representatives concluded that a new approach based on integration of the traditional subjects (History, Geography & Civics) and some elements from Economics, Sociology and Anthropology was needed (Adeyemi as cited in Jotia & Matlale, 2011). According to Barth (1994) the NCSS upped the African social studies momentum by providing support in terms of expertise. He describes the turning point as the hosting of Third International Social Studies Conference on African soil. It has to realised here, that African social studies timeline is short when put on scale with the international one simply because it is an imported course of study.

Associative arguments undergirding social studies integration

Authors Kottler and Gallavan (2008) see social studies “…beginning as a river and the contributing disciplines as the streams that flow into the river. The river grows deeper and stronger as more streams (the contributing arts and humanities) make the integrated curriculum. Social studies therefore becomes the ocean…” (p.27). This part of the discussion departs by restating the essay position that social studies should be left as it is in terms of being taught as an independent discipline. It does so by reading between the lines of the thematic strands that have stood the times in pursuit of good citizenship education. Herczog (2010) list the following guiding strands for social studies curriculum;

·         people, places and environment

·         time, continuity and change

·         individual development and identity

·         individuals, groups and institutions

·         power, authority and governance

·         production, distribution and consumption

·         science, technology and society

·         global connection

·         civic ideals and practices

It is common within social studies that the above are adopted and incorporated into the curriculum by countries around the world. They should as a matter of procedure be taught in a spiral form (from the known to the unknown) and or increasing the scope and depth as standards go up yearly (Department of Curriculum Development & Evaluation, 2005; Department of Curriculum Development & Evaluation, 1990; Kochhar, 1984). The issue of scope and depth essentially provides a sense of direction to the adopted integrated teaching and learning of social studies. It in this view, that, this essay struggles to envisage the future teaching of social studies independent of these strands which are embedded within the various disciplines that make up social studies. Whitson (2003) sarcastically refers to social studies in this manner as an amalgam of subjects which will die a natural death in the future since cynical voices are beginning to strike the higher chords for people to wake up whilst Evans (2004) cynically sees it as an omnibus course of study. In spite of the sarcasm, it has to be reiterated that making social studies independent of these disciplines is akin to flushing it down the black hole. This analogy is used here to imply that social studies will be left with nothing but very little to teach with regards to the subject matter.

Undeniably, counter statements may be made contrary to the above, for example, it could be argued concepts like citizenship education and nation building can provide the perfect content for social studies when explored in depth in the event that it is taught separately. Contrariwise, it becomes almost impossible to teach for citizenship without paying visit to the knowledge of politics, economics and governance as sources of social studies content. Statements undergirding the independent teaching of the subject are deficient of and indeed disregarding the knowledge bases of the teacher like pedagogical content knowledge which are the weapons of the teaching cadre (Cogil, 2008; Shulman, 1986; Turner-Bisset, 1999)

One particular counter statement that should otherwise have preceded the above is the assertion that social studies as a combination of different disciplines is narrow and shallow. Oats (2014) boldly posit that “the content of different disciplines in social studies do not deeply expose learners to meaningful contexts and are relatively fragmented facts and generalizations” (p.42). The essay would like to, on the rebound, hasten that this should not be the dismissing factor of social studies integrated approach but rather as suggested by (Kerr & Cleaver cited in Oats, 2014) opposite views should be seen as part of the continuum not a mutually exclusive position in its entirety. Thus, in short, fragmentation coexists with some integration (Strauss, 1997) implying that the suggested fragments of the social studies are better off integrated than when social studies is left to stand in isolation. As observed by Schug and Cross (as cited in Lintner, 2013) the ten themes of social studies purposefully integrate science, technology, global connections, civic ideals and practices. In fostering cross disciplinary integration, the NCSS sent the message that its standards play down separate social studies disciplines and play up curriculum integration thus further dismissing the teaching of social studies as an independent subject.

Ferlazzo (2012) presents an interesting anecdote saying that educators should push their teaching beyond the traditional peripheries of our discipline to show that social studies is rightly positioned as an integrated subject. He state that there are pressing issues facing mankind like climate change which teachers somewhat feel belongs to scientists and are extra-terrestrial to social studies. However, the social impact, mitigation proposals and ultimately how we can create a habitable world of sanity are social studies issues, albeit being marginalized by those who dismiss the integrated approach of our beloved subject. This further reinforces the notion put forward by this essay that social studies is better placed in its integrated nature. To drive the argument home Kirby-Gonzalez (as cited in Ferlazzo, 2012) as a matter of diplomacy states “we need a little help from our friends” implying the disciplines undergirding social studies. Thus a foundation for the future citizens and social studies requires concepts from other disciplines lest we render the foundation weak if it is to stands alone.

It is the view of this essay that social studies should be left to sit comfortably on the chair with its integration hat on. To be precise, stripping social studies off disciplines like Politics will be injustice to the young citizenry who need political knowledge from a young age. According to Michaels, Michaels and Michaels (as cited in Ajiboye, 2009) who use Botswana as an example,  propose that children should typically be introduced to the constitution as part of the social studies curriculum at an early age. This is an important movement because the constitution is the citizens’ handbook and the governments book of agreement. The same should be extended to other countries such that good citizens are seen as knowledgeable about government processes (Dube & Moffat, 2009). Moreover, if Politics were to be adrift of social studies, those unfortunate learners who would for whatever reason fail to cross the bridge to the next level of education besides elementary or primary levels where Politics may be an independent subject will be left in the darkness of political illetracy. The fact that they will eventually attain full citizenship status as grown-ups means they need political knowledge otherwise we risk having a politically illiterate group of young failures especially those in the peripheries occupied by the minority.  The sovereignty of countries and dominance of democracy as a form of governance globally needs social studies and political knowledge (Barth, 1994).

According to the Department of Curriculum Development and Evaluation (2010) it is vital to include national issues like road safety, citizen economic empowerment, civic and voter education, globalization, rights and responsibilities into the syllabus. Looking at the above examples, their inclusion in social studies shows the integrated nature of the subject. They are important elements synonymous with citizenship education which is the chief goal of social studies (Ajiboye, 2009) and are borrowed from other disciplines to make up social studies. Welton (2005) caution that “not every child will become an engineer, doctor, or a scientist, but everyone will become a citizen, it is an office that everyone of us occupies” (p.5). It is the view of this essay that scrapping off these disciplines from social studies defeats its very purpose of citizenship attainment. Unless or otherwise those proposing for independence of the subject from other disciplines have a different overarching goal of the subject besides the current one. In fact, it is fundamental to see social studies as a field of study whose existence axis on its interdisciplinary and integrated nature (Banks & Martorella as cited in Owen, 1997).

In describing the role of social studies in the changing society, Merryfeild (1988) assert that the ASSP Conference articulated three areas where the subject could make a contribution; national integration, economic development and the promotion of self-confidence and initiative based on understanding of ones’ own worth and of the essential dignity of man. What then becomes relevant to this discussion in support of an integrated social studies is “national integration and economic development”. Arguing that the afore conference was African in origin and therefore not relative to the world is neither here nor there, the point is, what happens in one part of the world has the inherent potential to influence the global village whether positive or negative. National integration through an integrated social studies curriculum is not such a bad idea that can be dismissed. Moreover, for countries to prosper, especially in Africa, there is a greater need for economic development as suggested at the conference implying that knowledge of Economics is crucial to citizenship education as the overriding purpose of social studies.

There is a reflex shortage of social studies subject specialists in Botswana (Jotia & Matlale, 2011) and worldwide too. This is also relative to other disciplines like Geography and History (Starkey, 2000). Thus, the argument that social studies should be taught as a separate subject does not hold water for this essay because the initiative will be faced with manpower shortage even before implementing agents hit the ground running if the initiative is to be adopted. Within this shortcoming, there is also the unfortunate scenario wherein the subject is taught by generalist teachers and not specialists. Scholarly reflections have shown that Historians and Geographers are not trained to handle vast subjects like social studies prompting the propagation of calls for the subject to be taught separately out of desperation and desire to be seen at the fore in education circles (Lawton & Dufour, 1973). Shifting to teaching the subject in isolation hiding behind the rhetoric that educators possess insufficient knowledge of the contributing disciplines like Economics and dismissing it as lacking depth and cohesion (Oats, 2014) will not solve the puzzle. There is already a concern that the products of teacher institutions are lacking in some respects like citizenship, multicultural and global education (Mhlauli, 2011) hence calls for the review of teacher education programs (Hillburn & Maguth, 2014). It is against this backdrop that, this essay feels the problem here is not with teaching social studies separately but an organizational matter of policy and program review (Gleeson & Whitty, 1976) to restore the faith of people in the subject which is however at an all-time low (Tlou, O’Mara & Mautle, 1989).

According to DCDE (1990) “social studies was created to integrate knowledge not fragment it. We do not face life problems as sociologists or historians. Rather, we face them as citizens who have to take into consideration all of the knowledge that we have so that we might live effective lives” (p.3). The point of contention here is that, we do not live fragmented lives as human beings, but live an integrated kind of life. It is in this sense that social studies integrated and interdisciplinary approach prepares citizens for an integrated life than fragmented one which is found within the arguments of those proposing for the teaching of the social studies as a separated subject. Besides, we live in an interconnected global world than fragmented cohorts of nations and people.

It has emerged from discussion herein that, arguably, no other discipline has the innate pressure to integrate than social studies. On the other hand, it has been marginalized and suffers credibility crisis thus being pushed further to the proverbial back burner of educational importance. Yet, regardless of perspective or position, remains ripe for integration (Lintner, 2013). The subject has been credited with its integrated approach of borrowing from other disciplines that, each of them share a common identification and use of research guidelines, principles and generalizations and hypotheses (Womack, 1966). In lieu of the above, Lintner (2013) reiterate that “ social studies is never singular, it seeks the rich plurality of the perspectives, the purposeful interplay between content areas and the guiding belief that more is better” (p.12). Further, plaudits are found in the outstanding assets of integration that students develop the ability to use great and unavoidable interrelationships in the socials sciences into creating a single body of content needed to accomplish the purposes of social studies (Costley, 2015; Whitson, 2003; Womack, 1966). Besides, guest speakers can always be invited in the event that educators have problems (Ferlazzo, 2012).

Conclusion

It is claimed that social studies may not exist in the future in light of efforts to establish separate subjects (Whitson, 2003) and cynic analogies that integration is akin to squeezing a lemon wherein the juice is removed and only the useless rind and fibres remain (Lawton & Dufour, 1973). It is the opinion of this essay that the above is immaterial and social studies as integrated subject should never be thought of under auspices and pretext of being studied as a separate subject. This essay has consistently and tersely argued against the isolation of social studies from the social sciences citing among others the importance of integrating knowledge of other disciplines to citizenship education which is the sole purpose of social studies and the guiding thematic strands being intertwined. Good social studies pulls not just from its core, but from all other complimentary disciplines and in doing so, creates an interrelated and interdependent web of presentation and practice (Lintner, 2013). Hence the position adopted by this essay that social studies should not be studied separately in the form of Geography, Economics, History, Political Science and other related fields.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Adeyemi, B. M. (October, 2010). Social studies as pedagogy for effective citizenship. An inaugural             lecture delivered at the University of Botswana. Centre for Continuing Education (CCE). University of Botswana.

African Social Studies Programme. (March, 1985). Report on the seminar of the coordinating      committee of the ASSP. Nairobi, Kenya.

Ajiboye, J. O. (2009). Beyond cognitive evaluation in primary schools in Botswana: Issues and    challenges. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 48-57

Barth, J. L. (1994). After Nairobi: New horizons for social studies. Social Education, 58(6), 371- 372. 

Boadu, K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions on the importance of teaching citizenship education to   primary school children in Cape Coast, Ghana. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(2), 137- 147.

Cogil, J. (2008). Primary teachers’ interactive whiteboard practice across one year: Changes in pedagogy and influencing factors. Doctoral Thesis. University of London.

Costley, K. C. (2015). Research supporting integrated curriculum: Evidence for using this method          of instruction in public school classrooms. Retrieved from Eric Database: ED 552916

Crick, B. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democratic skills: Final Report of             the Advisory Group on Citizenship. London. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority            (QCA).

Department of Curriculum Development and Evaluation. (1990). The Botswana social studies      teaching methods: A resource book. Gaborone. Government Printers.

Department of Curriculum Development and Evaluation. (2010). Junior secondary school social             studies syllabus. Gaborone. Government Printers.

Department of Curriculum Development and Evaluation. (2005). Upper primary school social     studies syllabus. Gaborone. Government Printers.

 

Drake, S. & Burns, R. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. New York.        Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Dube, O. & Moffat, P. (2009). Towards accomplishing the goal of the world of work through       social studies instruction: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Scientific            Research in Education, 2(1), 1-12

Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York.     Teachers College Press.

Felarzzo, L. (2012). Several ways we can teach social studies more effectively.      http://www.edweek.org

Forgaty, R. & Stoehr, J. (1991). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences: Teams, themes             & threads. Gaza. I. L. Skylight Publishing, Inc.

Gleeson, D. & Whitty, G. (1976). Developments in social studies teaching. London. Open Books.

Herczog, M. M. (2010). Using the NCSS National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: A     Framework             for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment to Meet State Social Studies         Standards. Social Education.       74(4), 217–222

Hillburn, J. & Maguth, B. M. (2014). Spatial citizenship education: Civics teachers’ instructional             priorities and approaches. Journal of Social Studies Research. Retrieved from             http://dx.doi.org/10.1016

Holloway, J. E. & Choido, J. J. (2009). Social studies is being taught in the classroom: A contrarian        view. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 235-261.

Jotia, A. L. & Matlale, O. J. (2011). Use of instructional materials in social studies: Impact on      students’ performance in Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) in Botswana.           European Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 111-122.

Kerr, D. (1999). Citizenship education: An international comparison. National Foundation for     Educational Research (NFER). Retrieved from http://nationalarchives.gov.uk

Kochhar, S. K. (1984). The teaching of social studies. New Delhi. Sterling Publishers.

Kottler, E. & Gallavan, N. (2008). Secrets to success for social studies teachers. California.         Corwin Press.

Lawton, D. & Dufour, B. (1973). The new social studies. A handbook for teachers in primary,                  secondary and further education. London. Heinemann.

Lintner, T. (Ed).  (2013). Integrative strategies for the K-12 social studies classroom. New York.             Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Merryfeild, M. (1988). The African Social Studies Programme: An effort to improve curriculum & instruction across 17 African nations. Retrieved from Eric Database: ED 291665

NCSS. (1992). Testing and Evaluation of Social Studies Students Social Education. Social           Education, 55 (5), 284-293.

Oats, R. (2014). The responsiveness of social studies teacher training curriculum towards            democratic citizenship education in Botswana. University of South Africa.

Okoth, A. & Ndaloh, A. (2008). Social studies for primary teacher education. Nairobi. East African             Educational Publishers Ltd.

Owen, T. (1997). The challenge of teaching social studies methods to preservice elementary         teachers. Social Studies, 88(3), 113-126.

Salia-Bao, K. (1990). African Social Studies Program. A handbook for teachers. London. Evans Brothers.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4-14.

Singer, A. J. (2014). Social Studies for secondary schools: Teaching to learn, learning to teach.   4^th Ed. New York. Routledge.

Starkey, H. (2000). Citizenship education in France & Britain: Evolving theories and practices.    The Curriculum Journal, 11(1), 39-54.

Strauss, S. (1997). Partly fragmented, partly integrated: An anthropological examination of          “postmodern fragmented subjects”. Cultural Anthropology, 12, 362-404. DOI: 10.152

Tlou, J., O’Mara, R. & Mautle, G. (1989). The teaching of social studies in Botswana. Report      presented to BOLESWA Educational Research Symposium. Gaborone.

Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of expert teacher. British Educational Research   Journal, 25 (1), 39-55.

Welton, D. A. (2000). Children and their world: Strategies for teaching social studies. 8^th Ed.      Boston. Houghton Mifflin Co.

Whitson, J. A. (2003). What social studies teachers need to know. The new urgency of some old disputes. In Adler, S. (Ed.). Critical issues in social studies teacher education (9-35). New      York. Information Age Publishing.

Womack, J. G. (1966). Discovering the structure of social studies. New York. Benzinger Brothers.