developing preservice and inservice teachers’ pedagogical ...developing preservice and inservice...
TRANSCRIPT
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 73 Spring 2016
Developing Preservice and Inservice Teachers’ Pedagogical Content
Knowledge
in Economics
Cheryl A. Ayers
University Of Virginia
High school student achievement in economics has been predominantly characterized by low test
scores, while secondary social studies preservice teachers have less formal training in economics
than most other social studies disciplines. In this self-study, the instructional affordances and
constraints of an experimental economics methods course are analyzed in terms of developing
secondary social studies preservice and inservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) in economics from both the instructor and pre and inservice teachers’ perspectives. Two
course assignments appeared to most notably develop PCK in economics, the Analysis of
Economic Events and the Active-Learning, Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson. Findings
suggest interrelationships exist among common content knowledge, specialized content
knowledge, and horizon content knowledge for teaching economics. Implications and
instructional suggestions for social studies teacher education and professional development are
discussed.
Keywords: social studies education, economic education, preservice and inservice
teachers, pedagogical content knowledge, common content knowledge,
specialized content knowledge, horizon content knowledge
Introduction
Nearly half of adults and two-thirds of high school students in the United States do not
understand basic economic concepts (CEE, 1999; Harris Interactive, 2005). Since 1976, most
adult and high school students have earned consistently low scores on the Test for Economic
Literacy, the most commonly administered standardized test in economic education (Miller &
VanFossen, 2008; Schug & Walstad, 1991; Walstad & Rebeck, 2001). These statistics may be
concerning in a democracy heavily dependent on an informed citizenry to make productive
economic decisions not only on a personal level but also on a societal level (VanFossen, 2005;
Walstad, 1998).
Teachers with low levels of economic understanding consistently have students who
learn less economics (Bosshardt & Watts, 1990; Miller & VanFossen, 2008; Watts & Walstad,
2011). Secondary social studies inservice teachers state that economics is the subject for which
they need the most professional development, both in content and pedagogy (Eisenhauer &
Zaporowski, 1994). This problem stems, in part, from less formal training in economics than in
other social studies subject among secondary social studies preservice teachers (Aske, 2003;
Bosshardt & Watts, 2005; Dumas, Evans, & Weible, 1997; Lynch, 1994; Schug, Harrison, &
Clark, 2012). On average, secondary social studies teacher education programs require one
content course in economics for licensure, while the typical social studies methods course
deemphasizes the coverage of economic education to one class session (Joshi & Marri, 2006;
Salemi, Saunders, & Walstad, 1996; VanFossen, 2000; Walstad, 1992). Compounding the
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 74 Spring 2016
problem, the literature base on how to prepare secondary social studies preservice and inservice
teachers to deliver effective economic instruction is almost silent; therefore, teachers are often
unprepared to teach economics at the secondary level.
The irony of these course and literature deficits is that more states than ever before are
requiring teachers to teach economics at the secondary level (CEE, 2014; NAEP, 2013).
\Currently, 22 states require all high school students to take an economics course to graduate,
and 45 states require economic standards to be implemented (CEE, 2014). The National Council
for the Social Studies (NCSS, 2010) describes social studies education as the “integrated
[emphasis added] study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence” (p.
3). Recently, the NCSS (2013) published its College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework,
advising social studies teachers to utilize an interdisciplinary approach to inquiry-based learning.
This study seeks to better understand how an economic methods course might uniquely prepare
secondary social studies teachers to deliver economic instruction that improves student
achievement in economics and better prepares students for their roles as adult democratic
citizens.
Review of Related Literature
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Education researchers often focus on better understanding what teachers need to know
and be able to do in order to deliver instruction that most effectively promotes student learning
(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Disagreement within the knowledge base for teaching,
however, exists partly because of the highly complex and dynamic nature of teacher knowledge
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Shulman, 1986, 1987). One subset of teacher knowledge research
started in 1986 when Lee Shulman delivered his oft-cited Presidential Address at the American
Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting. To reform education and
professionalize teaching, Shulman insisted teacher knowledge should look differently for each
subject, thereby necessitating subject-specific instructional practices. Shulman called this new
conceptualization pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and defined it as the blend of content
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that is unique to a particular subject. More specifically,
according to Shulman (1986), PCK includes,
…the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of
representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples,
explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, ways of representing and formulating the
subject that make it comprehensible to others. (p. 9)
Since then, education scholars in various subjects have refined and elaborated Shulman’s
original conception of PCK (e.g., Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,
1999; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Yet, despite these variations, a basic premise of PCK continues
to suggest that teachers who have adequate content knowledge in a discipline are not necessarily
equipped to deliver effective instruction in a way that translates into student learning. Somewhat
to blame is the frequent disconnect between preservice teachers’ coursework in content courses
and education courses commonly taught by different departments whose collaboration efforts are
minimal at best (Levine, 2006; Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy, 2010). Consequently, preservice
teachers are not given the opportunity to learn the PCK necessary for effective instruction
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
Content knowledge is still important, especially in the context of its interdependent and
interactive relationship with pedagogical knowledge in developing PCK. Three distinct domains
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 75 Spring 2016
of content knowledge for teaching are identified by Ball et al. (2008): common content
knowledge, specialized content knowledge, and horizon content knowledge. Common content
knowledge includes knowledge and skills needed outside the teaching profession. In the case of
economics, for example, ordinary citizens should understand that weighing costs and benefits
leads to improved decision making. Conversely, specialized content knowledge includes the
knowledge and skills required specifically by teachers to support student learning. In keeping
with the economic example, economic teachers should be able to anticipate and remedy common
student misconceptions, such as the belief that costs only refer to monetary values (Schug &
Baumann, 1991). Horizon content knowledge requires teachers to know how subject-specific
topics are related to students’ Kindergarten-12 experiences across grades and subjects. For
instance, Economics teachers, for example, need to understand that the concept of opportunity
cost learned in elementary grades is a building block for more complex economic concepts
learned in secondary grades such as production possibilities frontier and comparative advantage.
Content knowledge has also been divided into declarative and procedural knowledge
(Miller & VanFossen, 1994; Wineburg, 1990). Declarative knowledge encompasses the facts,
concepts, and principles within a particular discipline. Procedural knowledge, by contrast,
includes the knowledge and skills needed to apply declarative knowledge in a way that increases
understanding and solves novel problem scenarios. In economics, procedural knowledge is what
often separates experts from novices in solving real-world problem scenarios (VanFossen, 1996;
VanSickle, 1992). In sum, teachers should understand what counts as knowledge in a particular
subject in order to deliver effective instruction (Ball & McDiarmid, 1990).
Research on Developing PCK in Social Studies
Research focused on developing PCK in secondary social studies preservice teachers
mostly centers on historical thinking instruction, and these preservice teachers often graduate
with different competence levels of disciplinary understanding, even upon graduating from the
same teacher education program (e.g., Monte-Sano, 2011; Salinas, Bellows, & Liaw, 2011;
Waring & Torrez, 2010). Few PCK studies in economic education have been conducted besides
one study that used technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), an extension of the
PCK construct, to examine inservice teachers’ economic instruction utilizing podcasting
technology (Swan & Hofer, 2011). On a more positive note, several articles have been published
that begin a dialogue about the teacher knowledge needed by secondary social studies preservice
teachers to be well equipped to teach economics as an integral part of the social studies
curriculum and about the challenges of an economic methods course (Joshi, 2003; Joshi & Marri,
2006; Weidenaar, 1980). However, little to no research has been conducted that examines how
PCK in economics is developed in secondary social studies pre/inservice teachers (Joshi &
Marri, 2006). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of how
teacher educators might better develop secondary social studies pre/inservice teachers’ PCK in
economics.
Research on Economic Reasoning and Interdisciplinary Instruction
One possible explanation for why high school students typically graduate with subpar
levels of economic knowledge and skills is the pervasiveness of teacher-centered instructional
practices in economics (Becker & Watts, 2001; Wentworth, 1987). A de-emphasis on economic
reasoning instruction often exists despite the widespread agreement among economic educators
that a major goal of high school economic instruction should be to teach students to apply
economic concepts and principles to real world events. This application of economic content has
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 76 Spring 2016
the potential to sharpen students’ analytical and decision making skills (Schug & Western, 1990;
VanFossen, 2000; Wentworth, 1987), including the ability to think critically about key economic
issues such as poverty (Otlin, 2008).
Economic educators recommend that students are afforded frequent learning
opportunities to practice economic reasoning skills requiring the application of basic economic
concepts and principles, similar to the way in which mathematics students practice basic
algebraic formulas (Wentworth, 1987). The Economic Way of Thinking (EWT), for example,
also known as “thinking like an economist,” is designed to develop disciplinary-specific
reasoning skills by using the following six economic principles upon which most economists
agree (CEE, 2000; Wentworth, 1987; Wentworth & Schug, 1993):
1. People choose.
2. All choices involve costs.
3. People respond to incentives in predictable ways.
4. Economic systems influence individual choices and incentives.
5. Voluntary trade creates wealth.
6. The consequences of choices lie in the future.
These six economic principles construct a unique lens designed to make sense of complex
economic events and issues that sometimes seem at odds with what common sense would
ordinarily suggest. Using the EWT to better understand current events has the potential to
generate more informed and productive decision making cognizant of the long-term
consequences imposed on the lives of individuals and society at large. The ability to critically
analyze economic issues and policies from multiple perspectives then articulate an argument
grounded in economic concepts and principles should also be an important outcome of economic
reasoning instruction (Davies, 2006).
Another possible contributing factor to historically low student achievement in economics is the
incomplete and often inaccurate integration of economic concepts into other social studies
subjects (Buckles & Watts, 1998). Due in part to social studies preservice teachers’ limited
coursework in economics, Joseph Eisenhauer and Mark Zaporowski (1994) found that, on
average, interdisciplinary social studies inservice teachers indicated they had difficulty teaching
42% of the economic content outlined in their course syllabi. Three-fourths of these same
teachers specified the need for professional development programs in economics. In contrast to
the findings that the integration approach to economic instruction is often unreliable and
ineffective (Becker, Greene, & Rosen, 1990; Miller & VanFossen, 2008), some evidence exists
that integrated economic instruction is better than none at all. For example, Mark Schug and
Scott Niederjohn (2008) reported significant gains in economic achievement in U.S. history
classes when teachers incorporated explicit economic instruction with non-economic content
rather than merely mentioning economics as somewhat of an afterthought or side note. Also
promising, after reviewing domain-specific literature related to economic education, Watts
(2005) concluded economics can be integrated effectively in other social studies subjects if
enough accurate, context-specific economic examples are included during instruction. Taken
together, these inferences suggest there is potential for successful integration of economics in
other social studies subjects if the instruction is delivered under the right circumstances and by
skilled teachers (Schug, Harrison, & Clark, 2012). The research question guiding this study was
What are the instructional affordances and constraints of an economic methods course in terms
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 77 Spring 2016
of developing secondary social studies pre/inservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) in economics from both the instructor and pre/inservice teachers’ perspectives?
Method The data collected in this self-study come from an economic methods course called
“Economics for Educators,” which I created as an experimental course and taught during the Fall
2012 semester at a southeastern university. Of the 11pre and inservice teachers enrolled in the
course, seven were undergraduate students and four were graduate students. Five students were
female, six were male, and all were between the ages of 20 and early 40s. Three students self-
identified as African-American, one student as Asian-American, one student as Hispanic, and the
remaining six students as White. All were enrolled in the university’s secondary social studies
teacher education program; however, one student had already completed her student teaching
practicum and had practiced as a high school social studies teacher for three years. Five of the
11 students had completed one or two courses in economic content at the undergraduate level.
Two students chose not to participate in the study, and another student never scheduled an
appointment to be interviewed. As the instructor of the course, I had 10 years of previous
experience in delivering teacher education and professional development programs as well as
three-credit, graduate-level courses in economic education to Kindergarten-12 social studies
pre/inservice teachers.
Because the course was approved as a content course in economics, approximately 80%
of class time was devoted to teaching economic content and 20%was focused on teaching PCK
in economics. The state’s standards in economics and the Council for Economic Education’s
(CEE, 2011a) Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics guided the breadth and depth
of microeconomic, macroeconomic, and international economic content coverage to maximize
students’ marketability and mobility as future teachers. The primary text used for the economic
content portion of the course was Essentials of Economics, 8th edition (Schiller, 2011), and the
main teaching resources were Virtual Economics 4.0 CD-ROM (CEE, 2011b) and the Economics
and Personal Finance Resources for K-12 website (CEE, 2013).
Self-studies of instructional practices (Dinkelman, 2003; Faikhamta & Clarke, 2013;
Feldman, 2003; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2014; Peercy, 2014; Ragoonaden, 2015) are offering
evidence-based solutions for education reform (Zeichner, 2007). To collect accurate data, all
student work in my study was either posted on Blackboard Learn™ and then saved electronically
on my computer or submitted in hard copy form, photocopied, then stored in a filing cabinet. A
pre and post-survey was used to measure changes in economic attitudes and was administered at
the beginning and end of the course. Midway through the course, I asked the participants to
evaluate the course by answering the following two open-ended questions: What’s working?
What are your suggestions for change? In addition to the university’s end-of-course evaluation, I
also administered my own more detailed course evaluation on the last day of class to collect
participants’ perspectives regarding each of the graded assignments, among other course
components. Additionally, I recorded reflective and analytical insights in the form of researcher
memos during and after class sessions (Maxwell, 2013).
Meaningful self-studies require the researcher to intentionally collect data from
participants and other actors linked to the study to challenge his or her own assumptions with the
interpretations of others, thus increasing the validity of the findings by triangulating the data
collected (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Therefore, I received feedback
from a professor in the same department who observed two class sessions, after which debriefing
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 78 Spring 2016
meetings were held. To further challenge my assumptions and interpretations, semi-structured
interviews were scheduled about one month after the course ended with eight of the students to
gain a more in-depth, nuanced understanding of how the students experienced the course and
assignments. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed (see Appendix A for the interview
protocol). Upon further critical reflection after the course ended, I revised the course syllabus
and assignments to improve the course for the following year.
Analysis was guided by initial coding of the data to form descriptive and interpretive
codes which were eventually collapsed into categories then themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
These themes facilitated sense making of the data and developed propositions that, while
inherently personal and situation-specific in any self-study, have the potential to prompt readers
to generate their own “naturalistic generalizations” (Stake, 1995, p. 85) as they reflect on their
own teacher education and professional development practices and to consider delivering a
similar course to better prepare teachers for effective economic instruction. Data triangulation
among my instructor/researcher memos, student work, student pre and post-survey, student pre
and post-test, three course evaluations, and student interviews was sought to gain a deeper, more
refined understanding of how PCK in economics was and was not developed in the course
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
Findings
Economic content was taught predominantly by modeling active-learning economic
lessons from Virtual Economics that were often appropriate for replication with high school
students; one way in which I attempted to develop teachers’ PCK in economics. Because many
social studies teacher educators do not have enough content knowledge in economics to teach an
economic methods course that also counts as a content course in economics, I chose to focus
here on two assignments instead, both of which are relatively easy to implement. These two
assignments emerged as major themes from the data whereby PCK in economics appeared to
most notably develop in the teachers: the Analysis of Economic Events and the Active-Learning,
Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson.
Analysis of Economic Events Assignment
The Analysis of Economic Events assignment was designed to reinforce economic
concepts and principles as well as develop economic reasoning skills, that is, increase both
declarative and procedural content knowledge. The assignment also simultaneously taught
participants a specific instructional strategy unique to economics called the EWT, thereby
attempting to further develop their PCK in economics. Each analysis was scaffolded by 12
questions that required participants to think critically about an economic news event on a variety
of levels such as stating a compromise between multiple perspectives and discussing how the
economic news personally impacted the lives of their future high school students. The emphasis
of the assignment was, however, on using the EWT to help make better sense of the economic
news articles (see Appendix B for the analysis form).
Despite what I thought was a thorough introduction to the EWT, most participants
struggled to provide depth of analysis on the first two assignments. By the end of the course,
however, the average grade for the class across all three assignments was an 87%. The pre and
post-survey item with the second highest percentage change at almost 42% was Item #11, which
stated, “I use basic economic concepts to analyze economic events in the news.” Further
triangulating the data, questions on my end-of-course evaluation asked participants to agree or
disagree with five statements derived from the course objectives listed in the syllabus. All
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 79 Spring 2016
circled “agree” for the second statement that read, “I am able to analyze economic events using
the ‘Economic Way of Thinking’ from multiple perspectives in order to make more informed,
productive decisions as a consumer, worker, and voting citizen.”
Despite the amount of practice it took for participants to demonstrate competence in
applying the EWT, they agreed that this systematic form of economic reasoning added real-
world relevance to economic instruction and was essential for making sense of daily economic
news that, at first glance, seemed overly complicated. Supporting evidence was found in the
interviews. One interviewee stated
I think that the six principles are really helpful in breaking down the economics in the
news. Specifically…you have to take a moment to step back and to think: What is this?
What is the cost? What are people choosing? What are the benefits? In going through
the six steps, you see how it plays out. It allows you to see how economics is interwoven
into our everyday life.
Another interviewee said
I like the analysis of the events a lot because I thought that was really a great thing to do
with your students, as well…. always that sort of current event requirement. I’d never
really seen it used very effectively,…[only] writing a paragraph about it, but I think the
[Analysis of Economic Events assignment] could be a way to do that effectively and
really get them to understand something.
A third interviewee stated
[The EWT] helps you with things you don’t really understand. It gives you a way to
analyze them step by step and come to a better understanding at the end.
In addition to better understanding the world in which they live, the participants also
claimed this process of economic reasoning prepares secondary students for democratic
citizenship “…because they are involved in a society that operates on voting and voting only
works with a populace…that is informed.” The basic tenants of the EWT appeared to give the
participants the means by which to formulate and cogently articulate their economic opinions as
well as to better understand political debates, thus hopefully cast a more informed vote. During
the interviews, one preservice teacher stated,
Being able to break down economic news that you see by using those six principles
allows you to better understand what [politicians are] trying to say and if it really makes
sense in your perspective. It allows you to interpret better [and]…better voice your
opinions about it.
Most of the participants acknowledged the broad applicability of the EWT and the
potential for interdisciplinary instruction by making claims in the interviews such as, “I’d want
to include [the EWT] in a bunch of different classes” and “You can use [the EWT] for
everything…and [it] helps you understand why people make the choices that they make.” The
participants’ newfound connection between the EWT and other subjects provided a glimpse into
the early stages of developing horizon content knowledge, as the following quote illustrates:
“The [EWT] principles are simple but comprehensive and easily applicable…[and] can be used
to explain and understand events and decisions involving history, geography, sociology, even
psychology.” Finally, teaching high school students to use economic reasoning skills, instead of
just memorizing economic concepts, was an important educational goal shared by a participant:
I think our main goal is to teach kids how to think, and [the EWT] helps them in a
systematic way to think about things and take their own personal views out of it to an
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 80 Spring 2016
extent and look at things more logically, which is something I want all people to be able
to do.
Active-Learning, Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson Assignment
Midway through the course, the participants were given the opportunity to demonstrate
their own PCK in economics with an emphasis on developing horizon content knowledge. This
assignment was designed to give them practice in writing and demonstrating an active-learning
via an interdisciplinary economic lesson. By applying what they learned about economic content
and pedagogy, groups of approximately three participants wrote 45-minute lesson plans that
taught economic concepts in a way that incorporated another social studies subject as well as
demonstrated an active-learning instructional strategy. Participants then demonstrated the
lessons in class and completed a personal essay reflecting on the lesson writing and delivery
processes. To aid the reflection exercise, demonstrations were videotaped and later privately
viewed and evaluated by the participants according to the established demonstration performance
criteria. Whole-class discussions were held after each demonstration during which other
participants and I shared both positive and constructive feedback. The lesson-writing portion of
the assignment was scaffolded by allowing the participants to tweak published lessons on Virtual
Economics as long as at least 50% of their lesson was original (see Appendix C for lesson
descriptions).
Findings were mixed in regard to PCK in economics, as observed in lesson
demonstrations. All groups exhibited the ability to integrate economics and active-learning
strategies, which was especially impressive for the three groups—Groups 1, 3, and 4—whose
lesson plans were completely original. One group used a cotton production simulation to
generate excitement and a sense of competition between the two groups of “cotton producers,”
while infusing realistic variables that commonly influence production. Examples of economic
content that related to the lives of most high school students also were used. After the
participants simulated the economic growth of a city during the Industrial Revolution, for
example, they discussed the economic reasons for constructing local roads surrounding the
university and nearby city. In the economic and sociology lesson, participants converted the
average price of slaves during the Transatlantic Slave Trade into today’s dollars and compared it
with the price of a modern-day car.
The most obvious way in which the participants were weak in demonstrating PCK in
economics was in the actual process of infusing economic content into other social studies
subjects. Explicit connections between economic concepts and the other social studies concepts
were rarely made, and those connections made often seemed unplanned. In the geography
lesson, for example, the discussion of supply and demand concepts was in isolation, despite a
follow-up with a geography role-play activity having clear implications for understanding supply
and demand. Similarly, the economic concepts featured in the Industrial Revolution simulation
were supposed to be discovered inductively at the end of the simulation, but the participants
never specifically mentioned the economic concepts during the simulation debriefing. All five
lessons, however, contained potentially effective economic content integration. I judged that the
participants just needed to take time to be more thoughtful in making the economic concept
connections overt in both their written lesson plans and lesson demonstrations. The inservice
social studies teacher who had already taught economics reached the same conclusion in her
personal reflection essay when she wrote,
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 81 Spring 2016
The thing I want to do to improve my lesson writing is to think more about what
interdisciplinary concepts I can include in my lessons. That is, I am going to actively
seek out the opportunities for including interdisciplinary concepts in my lessons instead
of only including them when they jump out at me.
The degree to which the participants were successful in demonstrating their
interdisciplinary knowledge—that is, horizon content knowledge—sometimes depended on their
level of common content knowledge in other social studies subjects. One preservice teacher
commented in his personal reflection essay that integrating economics and geography was
“…harder than I thought it would be, granted geography is not one of my specialties, something I
should work on.” This same preservice teacher shared similar concerns in the interview when he
said that “some subjects will be easier than others” in terms of integrating economic content.
Further corroborating this finding were three pre/inservice teachers who had extensive
coursework in the social studies subject in which they integrated economics. In their personal
reflection essays, these pre/inservice teachers talked about the ease with which they integrated
economics. The preservice teacher who completed sociology coursework at the Master’s degree
level stated,
The [part] that I think we did a great job on was the integration between sociology and
economics. We used hardcore theory in both disciplines to explain the slave trade. The
lesson really focused on using economics to explain the motivation behind the slave
trade. By chunking the lesson into factors of production then supply and demand basics,
we developed the economic concepts within the lecture on the slave trade. In fact, it was
this integration of sociology and economics that others gave us high scores on.
Another preservice teacher with a background in political science said, “The integration…was
one of the easiest parts since government and economics are so intrinsically linked. This made it
exceptionally easy to incorporate them into the assignments and presentation.”
Just getting started was a problem for some groups who had never even considered
economic integration possibilities, as one preservice teacher commented in her personal
reflection essay: “Picking a subject that was not economics in order to teach economics was a
hard concept for me. At first I did not see how this was possible.” Related to history, another
preservice teacher claimed after the assignment was completed,
I was really surprised to see how many economic situations were easily describable
throughout various points in history that I had never given any thought to. Clearly
economics plays a huge role in several aspects in social studies, but without it ever being
pointed out to me as a student, I never even considered it.
Finally, it is likely that practice with economic integration is important, as the inservice teacher
who had already taught other social studies subjects commented in her personal reflection essay:
I think I could use more instruction and practice with including economic concepts into
lessons for other classes. As someone who has taught the other [social studies] subjects, I
struggled with integrating economics without losing any of the content I needed to
teach…
This assignment was most often cited as the best part of the course, in both course
evaluations and interviews. By the end of the course, participants admitted to not previously
realizing how important and broadly applicable economics is to understanding other social
studies subjects, much less just “how many integration opportunities there were” based on their
newfound realization that “…economics applies to all of life and so many different concepts.”
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 82 Spring 2016
The assignment seemed to develop some degree of horizon content knowledge in the
participants, as the following interview response suggests: “[In] every single discipline, you can
turn to economics and explain some of the motivating factors for why this was done and why this
wasn’t done.” Another related response was:
To understand American and world history, including why wars broke out or why
something else happened, you have to understand the econ behind it. What’s the saying?
War’s always over religion or money, so...I think not only does [the economics-history
integrated lesson] give students an insight into economics, but it lets them further
understand the history concepts you’re trying to teach them, too.
In her personal reflection essay, one preservice teacher wrote about her experiences in finding an
interconnected instructional relationship between economics and history: “I felt that it really
brought together what could’ve been considered two separate lessons on economics and history
into an easily understandable activity that really encompassed the presented concepts for both
disciplines.”
This assignment not only seemed to sharpen PCK in writing and demonstrating active-
learning instructional strategies uniquely geared toward economics, but based on some course
evaluations and interviews, the assignment also synergistically increased the participants’
common content knowledge in economics. The inservice teacher, for example, who had
completed two separate semesters of economics—microeconomics and macroeconomics—in her
undergraduate program and had taught economics at the high school level, came to the following
realization:
[It was] weird for me… because I had taught [economics] before but really didn’t
understand what I had been teaching, and some things I wasn’t teaching right and really
didn’t get. I definitely feel like I understand not only the content more, but ways to teach
it better and make it make more sense.
A similar sentiment was concisely expressed when another preservice teacher wrote, “The
easiest way to learn something is to teach it.”
The participants’ perceptions of their abilities to present active-learning, interdisciplinary
economic lessons at the end of the course appeared to be mostly positive, as evidenced on my
end-of-course evaluation. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “I am able to
present an active-learning, interdisciplinary economic lesson in preparation for integrating
similar lessons into the social studies curricula as a teacher,” nine participants agreed, one left it
blank, and one disagreed. The preservice teacher who disagreed decided not to go into the
teaching profession.
Discussion
This self-study set out to better understand the affordances and constraints of an
economic methods course in developing secondary social studies pre and inservice teachers’
PCK in economics. One inherent component of PCK is common content knowledge, which
appears to have increased as a result of my and the participants’ economic lesson demonstrations
and EWT assignments. Gaining specialized and horizon content knowledge of how to teach
economics simultaneously helped the participants gain common content knowledge in
economics, as evidenced in assignments, course evaluations, and interviews.
By combining both economic content and pedagogy, the Active-Learning,
Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson assignment appeared to be one of the most influential
contributors to developing these participants’ PCK in economics. Evidence existed via
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 83 Spring 2016
observations, peer feedback, and self-evaluations that the participants were successful in
executing active-learning strategies and including economic examples, both important elements
in delivering effective interdisciplinary economic instruction (Schug & Niederjohn, 2008; Watts,
2005). The participants needed to be more thoughtful in making the interdisciplinary content
connections more explicit during instruction.
The lesson demonstrations also allowed other participants to experience economic
instruction as high school students might, affording them opportunities to recognize and discuss
potential student misconceptions and instructional remedies. Consequently, I submit that these
experiential learning components of the course are important in developing PCK in economics.
During and after these lesson demonstrations, whole-class discussions of examples of economic
content related to current events and the everyday lives of high school students provided further
opportunities to develop PCK in economics. In some ways, these lesson demonstrations were
similar to written cases studies of instructional practices some teacher education scholars claim
are important to analyze in order to develop PCK (e.g., Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, &
Shulman, 2002; Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2008; Shulman, 1987).
Even though the participants demonstrated an ability to provide interdisciplinary
economic instruction, they all struggled to get started. This initial hurdle has implications for
other teachers who may experience the same frustrations, especially if they were not given
opportunities to practice integration strategies in their teacher education programs: a reason,
perhaps, why interdisciplinary economic instruction is often documented as ineffective (Miller &
VanFossen, 2008). Therefore, I posit that interdisciplinary economic instruction and practice
should be staples in social studies methods courses, especially because the NCSS defines social
studies as an integrated study of multiple social sciences and the new C3 Framework insists on
interdisciplinary learning across all social studies subjects. Such interdisciplinary economic
instruction is particularly important in the 28 states that currently do not require an economic
course for high school graduation (CEE, 2014).
Just as making interdisciplinary connections between economics and other social studies
subjects was initially difficult, the EWT was not intuitive to the pre/inservice teachers in ways
similar to how Wineburg (1999) describes historical thinking as unnatural; yet all the more
reason to include such assignments in social studies methods courses and professional
development programs. A 21st century education requires critical thinking and reasoning skills
to engage in real-world, authentic tasks (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993; Preus, 2012) if informed
and prosperous citizenship is to remain a primary goal of U.S. public schools. The EWT is a
critical component in teaching high school students these skills in economics. From an
instructional standpoint, the EWT is a tool through which to also answer NCSS’s call for more
social studies authentic instruction, which includes teaching students to make informed decisions
(NCSS, 2010) and productively engage in discussions about controversial issues (Hess, 2002;
Kelly, 1986). The EWT is a form of procedural knowledge unique to the study of economics,
thus the Analysis of Economic Events assignment has the potential to impact the development of
teachers’ PCK in economics, with the added benefit of reinforcing content and shaping teacher
orientations to include correct disciplinary understanding.
Finally, two limitations of this study need to be addressed. The first limitation is the
small sample size of nine teachers. While often necessary for qualitative studies in education
because of complex and nuanced teaching environments, such a small sample size generates
findings that are highly contextualized and thus reduces the degree to which the findings are
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 84 Spring 2016
transferable (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The second limitation is my researcher bias (Maxwell,
2013) that existed because I was both the instructor and the researcher, although inherent in self-
study research. Consequently, the participants may have felt obligated to provide positive
feedback, especially during the interviews, even though proper anonymity safeguards were in
place and the interviews occurred after the course ended and final course grades were submitted.
Conclusion
I hope that this study continues the conversations started by Joshi and Marri (2006) and
others about the need for secondary social studies teacher education and professional
development programs to better prepare pre and inservice teachers to deliver economic
instruction that reverses the historically low student achievement scores in economics. For
secondary students to be prepared for democratic citizenship, they must learn economics from
teachers who have PCK in economics. The course affordances and constraints discussed in this
study will hopefully serve as a springboard for teacher educators to implement similar economic
instructional practices and assignments in the future. Succinctly making the case for economic
education, the inservice teacher in this study concluded,
I think most people turn to the news to be informed about what’s going on in the world
and things like that, so if you can’t read a newspaper article and understand the
economics of what’s going on, how can you have a really deep understanding of what’s
going on in the world?
References
Aske, D. (2003). How prepared are prospective high school social studies teachers to infuse
economics in social studies courses? Journal of Social Studies Research, 27(1), 23-23.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes
it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
Becker, W. E., Greene, & Rosen, S. (1990). Research on high school economic education.
Journal of Economic Education, 21(3), 231-245.
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (2001). Teaching economics at the start of the 21st century: Still
chalk-and-talk. New Research in Economic Education, 91(2), 446-451.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bosshardt, W., & Watts, M. (1990). Instructor effects and their determinants in precollege
economic education. Journal of Economic Education, 21(3), 265-76.
Bosshardt, W., & Watts, M. (2005). Teachers' undergraduate coursework in economics in the
baccalaureate and beyond longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Education, 36(4),
400-406.
Buckles, S., & Watts, M. (1998). National standards in economics, history, social studies, civics,
and geography: Complementarities, competition, or peaceful coexistence? Journal of
Economic Education, 29(2), 157-166.
Council on Economic Education (CEE). (2000). The great economic mystery book: A guide to
teaching economic reasoning in grades 9-12. New York, NY: The Economics America
and Economics International Programs.
Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2011b). Virtual Economics 4.0 (CD-ROM). New York,
NY: Council for Economic Education.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 85 Spring 2016
Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davies, P. (2006). Educating citizens for changing economies. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
38(1), 15-30.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In
N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.,
pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and end tool for promoting
reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-19.
Dumas, W., Evans, S., & Weible, T. (1997). Minimum state standards for secondary social
studies teacher licensure: A national update. The Social Studies, 88(4), 163-166.
Eisenhauer, J. G., & Zaporowski, M. P. (1994). Cross-disciplinary teaching in high school
economics. Social Education, 58(4), 226-229.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 247-
262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Faikhamta, C. C., & Clarke, A. (2013). A self-study of a Thai teacher educator developing a
better understanding of PCK for teaching about teaching science. Research in Science
Education, 43(3), 955-979.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Feldman, A. (2003). Validity and quality in self-study. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 26-28.
Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2014). Self-study of teacher education practices as a pedagogy
for teacher educator professional development. Advances in Research on Teaching, 22, 137-152.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Shulman, L. (2002, April 10-14). Toward expert thinking:
How case-writing contributes to the development of theory-based professional knowledge in
student-teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA.
Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies
classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education,
30(1), 10-41.
Joshi, P. (2003). Making space: The economics methods course within social studies education.
The International Social Studies Forum, 3(1), 297-301.
Joshi, P., & Marri, A. R. (2006). An economics methods course? Challenges of teaching
economics education methods course for secondary social studies preservice teachers.
The Social Studies, 97(5), 197-202.
Kelly, T. E. (1986). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher’s role.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 113-138.
Lynch, G. (1994). High school economics: Separate course vs. the infusion approach.
International Journal of Social Education, 8(3), 59-69.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical
content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for
science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 86 Spring 2016
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (1994). Assessing expertise in economic problem solving: A
model. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22(3), 380-412.
Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (2008). Recent research on the teaching and learning of pre-
collegiate economics. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in
social studies education (pp. 284-304). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108(6), 1017–1054.
Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Learning to open up history for students: Preservice teachers’ emerging
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 260-272.
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2010). National curriculum standards for
social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment. Silver Spring, MD:
National Council for the Social Studies.
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation:
Purposes, practices, and implications of the college, career, and civic life (C3)
framework for the social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for
the Social Studies.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational
Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
Otlin, J. (2008). The causes of poverty: Thinking critically about a key economic issue. Social
Education, 72(2), 75-79.
Peercy, M. M. (2014). Challenges in enacting core practices in language teacher education: A
self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 10(2), 146-162.
Preus, B. (2012). Authentic instruction for 21st century learning: Higher order thinking in an
inclusive school. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 59-79.
Ragoonaden, K. (2015). Self-study of teacher education practices and critical pedagogy: The
fifth moment in a teacher educator's journey. Studying Teacher Education: Journal of
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 11(1), 81-95.
Salemi, M., Saunders, P., & Walstad, W. (1996). Teacher training programs in economics: Past,
present, and future. American Economic Review, 86(2), 460-464.
Salinas, C., Bellows, M. E., & Liaw, H. L. (2011). Preservice social studies teachers’ historical
thinking and digitized primary sources: What they use and why. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 184-204.
Schiller, B. R. (2011). Essentials of economics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Schug, M. C., & Niederjohn, M. S. (2008). Can students learn economics in U. S. history? The
Journal of Private Enterprise, 23(2), 167-176.
Schug, M. C., & Walstad, W. B. (1991). Teaching and learning economics. In J. Shaver (Ed.),
Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 411-419). New York,
NY: MacMillan Reference Books.
Schug, M. C., & Western, R. D. (1990). The unexpected pleasure of teaching high school
economics. Social Education, 54(2), 77.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 87 Spring 2016
Schug, M. C., Harrison, A. S., Clark, J. R. (2012). All we know that may be so in economic
education. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(1), 1-8.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(4), 4-14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swan, K., & Hofer, M. (2011). In search of technological pedagogical content knowledge:
Teachers’ initial foray into podcasting in economics. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 44(1), 75-98.
Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464-476.
VanFossen, P. J. (1996). Relevant indicators of relative expertise in economic problem-solving:
A factor analysis. Educational Resources Information Center. ERIC Document number
388 572.
VanFossen, P. J. (2000). Teachers’ rationales for high school economics. Theory and Research
in Social Education, 28(3), 391-410.
VanFossen, P. J. (2005). Economic concepts at the heart of civic education. International
Journal of Social Education, 20(2), 35-66.
VanSickle, R. L (1992). Learning to reason with economics. Journal of Economic Education,
23(1), 56-64.
Walstad, W. B. (1992). Economics instruction in high schools. Journal of Economic Literature,
30(4), 2019-2051.
Walstad, W. B., & Rebeck, K. (2001). Assessing the economic understanding of U.S. high
school students. American Economic Review, 91(2), 452-457.
Waring, S. M., & Torrez, C. (2010). Using digital primary sources to teach historical perspective
to preservice teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
10(3), 294-308.
Watts, M. (2005). What works: A review of research on outcomes and effective program delivery
in precollege economic education. New York, NY: National Council on Economic
Education.
Watts, M., & Walstad, W. B. (2011). What research tells us about teaching high school
economics. In M.C. Schug & W.C. Wood (Eds.), Teaching economics in troubled times:
Theory and practice for secondary social studies (pp. 200-212). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Wentworth, D. R. (1987). Economic reasoning: Turning myth into reality. Theory Into Practice,
26(3), 170-175.
Wentworth, D. R., & Schug, M. C. (1993). Fate vs. choices: What economic reasoning can
contribute to social studies. Social Studies, 84(1), 27-31.
Wineburg, S. (1990). Historical problem-solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the
evaluation of documentary evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University, Palo Alto, CA.
Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 488-499.
Zeichner, K. M. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36-46.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 88 Spring 2016
Web-based References
Council on Economic Education (CEE). (1999). Results of the survey of economic literacy.
Retrieved from http://herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/education/
sponsored/literacy.html#TEL
Council on Economic Education (CEE). (2011a). Voluntary National Content Standards in
Economics. Retrieved from http://www.councilforeconed.org/resource/voluntary-
national-content-standards-in-economics/
Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2013). Economics and personal finance resources for
K-12. Retrieved from http://www.econedlink.org/
Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2014). Survey of the states: Economic and personal
finance education in our nation’s schools, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.councilforeconed.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014-Survey-of-the-
States.pdf
Harris Interactive. (2005). What American teens and adults know about economics. Retrieved
from http://www.vietnetlinks.com/thuvien/WhatAmericansKnowAboutEconomics_
042605-3.pdf
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Education Schools Project. Retrieved from
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2013). The nation’s report card:
Economics 2012. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/
main2012/2013453.aspx
Walstad, W. (1998). Why it’s important to understand economics. The Region, Federal Reserve
Bank of Minneapolis, Retrieved from http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_
papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3582
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 89 Spring 2016
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
1. How do you define economics?
2. Do you believe that understanding economics is important for high school students? Adults?
Why or why not?
3. Do you think public schools should require students to learn more economics? Why or why
not?
4. Do the six principles of the “economic way of thinking” help you make better sense of the
world in general? Economic events featured in the news in particular? Why or why not?
5. Do you feel like you have enough economic content knowledge after taking this course to
teach economics at the high school level? Explain.
6. Do you feel like you have enough economic instructional resources after taking this course to
teach economics at the high school level? Explain.
7. Do you feel like you will be able to effectively utilize active-learning instructional strategies
after taking this course to interest high school students in economics? Explain.
8. Do you feel like you will be able to effectively integrate economic concepts into other social
studies subjects? Why or why not?
9. How will you go about making economics interesting to your high school students?
10. Do you believe that it is important for teachers to not unduly influence students’ political
beliefs about the free market vs. government control debate?
11. What concerns do you have about teaching high school economics, if any?
12. Did you enjoy the course format in terms of mixing content and pedagogy? Explain.
13. Do you think the assignments were effective in learning economics? Explain.
14. What things did you enjoy most about the course?
15. What are your suggestions for improving the course?
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 90 Spring 2016
Appendix B
Analysis Form
Analysis of Economic Events
Applying the Economic Way of Thinking
After finding a news article from a reliable news source, please fill in the identifying information
below and answer the questions that follow in order to practice the economic way of thinking to
make more informed and productive decisions for yourself and society at large.
Article Name
News Source Date
1. How would you summarize the news article in approximately 5 sentences?
2. How does the news article pertain to microeconomics, macroeconomics, and/or international
economics?
3. Which economic concepts are featured?
4. What interdisciplinary (i.e., other social studies subjects) and/or multidisciplinary (i.e., other
academic subjects such as science and math) concepts are featured?
5. List and explain ALL 6 principles of the economic way of thinking in a way that helps
explain the news article. **Give this part of the analysis special attention.**
6. What additional information would be helpful?
7. What do you predict will happen in the short-term? Long-term?
8. What is your personal position on the issue and recommended course of action in the future?
9. What comprise might need to take place between the multiple perspectives?
10. What policy reform recommendations do you have?
11. How is this economic event relevant to your personal life? To the lives of your future high
school students?
12. What economic lesson would be helpful in teaching high school students about the economic
content featured in this article? Use Virtual Economics 4.0 or www.econedlink.org. List the
name of the lesson and the name of the publication.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 91 Spring 2016
Appendix C
Active-Learning, Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson Descriptions
Grou
ps
Interdiscipli
nary
Subjects
(Concepts)
Primary
Economic
Concepts
Active-
Learni
ng
Strateg
y
Lesson Overview
1 Sociology
(Social
Inequalities
and Social
Institutions)
World
History
(Transatlant
ic Slave
Trade)
Factors of
Production;
Supply and
Demand;
Trade
Game The preservice teachers used a highly graphic
PowerPoint to discuss the Transatlantic Slave
Trade from an economic and sociological
perspective. The PowerPoint was then used to
play a game called “Who Wants To Be a
Merchant?” modeled after the television game
show “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?”.
Fifteen game questions reviewed basic concepts
in economics, sociology, and history, as they
pertained to the root causes, events, and
outcomes of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
2 Geography
(Renewable
and
Nonrenewa
ble
Resources)
Natural
Resources;
Supply and
Demand
Role-
play
The lesson began with a presentation of U.S.
natural resource imports and trading partners
(e.g., diamonds come from Belgium) followed
by a review of supply and demand. Next,
students were assigned a country/resource then
asked to trade with five other
countries/resources, after which all trades were
transferred to a world map with arrows showing
which countries supplied and demanded which
natural resources.
3 Government
(Role of
Government
in a Market
Economy)
Market and
Governmen
t Failure;
Business
Regulation
Political
Cartoon
s
The preservice teachers first analyzed several
political cartoons with the class about market
and government economic failures. The
students were then divided into two groups and
given a political cartoon expressing opposing
economic perspectives about business
regulations and asked to analyze the cartoon
using a six step process. Both groups shared
their interpretations of the cartoon with the
class. The lesson concluded with students
attempting to draw their own political cartoons
about the economic concepts featured in the
lesson.
4 U.S. History
(Industrial
Revolution)
Specializati
on; Costs
Simulati
on
After a brief discussion of what life looked like
for an average American before the Industrial
Revolution, pairs of students were instructed to
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
Volume 11 Number 1 92 Spring 2016
Author Bio
Cheryl A. Ayers is the Associate Director of the Center for the Liberal Arts, Advanced Research
Specialist in the Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, and Adjunct Faculty
in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. Before earning a Ph.D. degree in
Curriculum and Teaching, she served as a director of Kindergarten-12 teacher education and
professional development in economic education for public and private schools in central
Virginia. E-mail: [email protected]
and
Benefits
illustrate how specialization contributed to the
development of cities during the Industrial
Revolution. Then, the inservice teacher read a
script of how colonial farms were slowly
displaced while the students used markers to
draw farms, schools, stores, factories, houses,
and roads as directed by the script reading.
5 U. S.
History
(Cotton
Industry)
Factors of
Production;
Production;
Costs and
Benefits
Simulati
on
The lesson began with a brief overview of the
U.S. cotton industry in the 19th century followed
by a simulation in which two groups of students
were given different types of capital (e.g.,
scissors) to produce as much cotton (i.e., one
inch squares of paper) within three different 2-
minute rounds. Various unexpected events
(e.g., natural disaster) were announced in each
round, representing the variables that affected
cotton production. Total production was
calculated after each round and compared
between the groups.