Personalized
LEARNING
in Social Studies Teacher
Education
Timothy Patterson
Temple University
www.centeril.org
The Center on Innovaons in Learning (CIL) is a naonal content center established to work with regional comprehensive
centers and state educaon agencies (SEA) to build SEAs’ capacity to smulate, select, implement, and scale up innovaons
in learning.
Learning innovaons replace currently accepted standards of curricular and instruconal pracce with new pracces dem-
onstrated to be more eecve or more ecient in the context in which they are applied.
The Center on Innovaons in Learning is administered by the Instute for Schools and Society (ISS) at Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in partnership with the Academic Development Instute (ADI), Lincoln, Illinois.
The Center is funded by the U.S. Department of Educaon, Oce of Elementary and Secondary Educaon (OESE), under
the comprehensive centers program, Award # S283B120052-12A.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reect the posion of the supporng agencies, and no ocial endorse-
ment should be inferred.
©2016 Center on Innovaons in Learning, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
Studies Teacher Education
Timothy Patterson
Temple University
Personalized Learning in Social
Table of ConTenTs
Abstract ........................................................................................... 1
Introducon .................................................................................... 1
The Place of Personalized Learning in the Social Studies .................. 2
Bringing Personalized Learning Into Social Studies Teacher Educaon
.... 5
Inquiry and Personalized Learning ................................................... 7
Digital Technology, Personalized Learning, and the Social Studies .. 11
Sociocultural Perspecves and Movaonal Competencies ........... 15
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 20
References .................................................................................... 21
About the Author .......................................................................... 28
1
Abstract
Social studies teachers are asked to do the seemingly
impossible: cover a broad array of content during the
school year while also inslling crical reading and
wring skills and developing a broadly dened civic
identy. How can they eecvely prepare to meet these
ambious goals? In this guide, I argue for the place of
personalized learning in social studies teacher educaon.
Making inquiry the centerpiece of social studies teacher
educaon will facilitate the move towards personalized
learning in lesson planning, curriculum design, and assess-
ment. Through inquiry-related acvies and projects,
supported by digital and communicave technologies
and a sociocultural approach to content planning, social
studies teachers have the ability to enhance students’
personal competencies, facilitang mastery in a broad
array of social studies knowledge and skills.
Introducon
Imagine a rst-year social studies teacher teaching a segmented
survey course, such as United States History, 1877 to the Present
(unlike those that teach courses which cover pre-Columbian sele-
ment to the present). This hypothecal social studies teacher has
roughly 180 days to cover 250 years of history but has no idea
where to begin. If he or she covers events chronologically, assum-
ing no me for assessments and no interrupons like snow days,
assemblies, or re drills, he or she must teach about the historical
events of one year and four months every single day. This hardly
seems feasible, so this teacher must consider what to include and
what to cut. Where does the teacher turn for advice? The standards
may be of lile help. Consider standard 8.3.9 of the Pennsylvania
Department of Educaon’s Academic Standards for History (2009):
“Compare the role groups and individuals played in the social,
polical, cultural, and economic development of the U.S.” (p. 11).
While the role of groups and individuals in history is important,
the teacher will nd no guidance as to which groups and individuals
are most crucial to his or her students’ development. Relying on
the
textbook is equally problemac, as the historical narraves in
2
text
books are rarely as coherent as teachers believe them to be
(Alvermann, Gillis, & Phelps, 2012).
What happens in pracce? Many social studies teachers
simply try to pack in as much content as possible, day by day, with
lile regard for an overall curricular vision of historical or civic
understanding, choosing to cover events they learned about in
their own secondary educaons (Thornton, 2005). The result is a
mile-wide, inch-deep educaon in social studies content, where
teachers inevitably fall short both in providing deep understandings
of foundaonal knowledge and their de facto goal of covering all
subject maer (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). While by no means a
challenge for social studies teachers alone, the problem of coverage
is certainly acute in this subject area.
So how might teacher educators
support preservice social studies teachers in overcoming the dilemma
of coverage? This guide addresses the use of personalized learning
as a framework for content selecon and focus in preservice social
studies teacher educaon.
The Place of Personalized Learning
in the Social Studies
Personalized learning refers to “the use of mulple
instruconal modes to scaold each student’s learning and
enhance the student’s movaon to learn and metacognive,
social, and emoonal competencies to foster self-direcon and
achieve mastery of knowledge and skills” (Redding, 2013, p. 6).
What is the place of personalized learning in the social studies?
Much like the social studies teacher described above, teacher
educators have tough choices to make. Which disciplines (history,
economics, polical science, etc.), topics, (civics, etc.), and skills
will best prepare preservice teachers to plan and teach in dynamic
social studies classrooms? This challenge reects the reality that
social studies is a school subject without
disnct denion or aims. Barr, Barth, and
Shermis (1977) describe the history of the
social studies as a “seamless web of confusion”
(p. 10), its purposes marked by debates over
whether teachers should inculcate their
students with democrac values, help students
develop disciplinary knowledge from the
social sciences, or foster decision-making
skills through reecve inquiry. Thornton
(2008) condensed the history of social stud
ies
“[P]ersonalizaon refers
to a teacher’s relaon-
ships with students and
their families and the
use of mulple instruc-
onal modes to scaold
each student’s learning
and enhance the student’s
movaon to learn and
metacognive, social, and
emoonal competencies
to foster self-direcon
and achieve mastery of
knowledge and skills.”
– Redding, 2013
3
educaon into two compeng camps: the social educaon camp, which
disregarded disciplinary boundaries in favor of an analysis of the individual
in society, and the social science camp, which argued for tradional,
disciplinary academic subjects such as history, geography, and polical
science in social studies classes.
At various mes throughout the history of the social studies,
elements
of personalized learning have been embodied by policy and
curricular pushes; at others, they fared worse. Generally speaking, the
social educaon approach has embraced curricular visions that rely on
the
principles of personalized learning. Take, for example, a series of
curriculum materials that were published in the 1960s collecvely known
as the New Social Studies. These materials were inspired by Bruner’s
The Process of Educaon (1960), and promoted discovery, project-based
approaches, and problem solving using disciplinary knowledge. Bruner’s
recommended approaches to teaching social studies embody elements of
personalized learning, such as student decision-making over key elements
of the learning process (Hargreaves, 2005), exible, project-based peda-
gogies (Deed, et al., 2014), and the incorporaon of learners’ personal
and social experiences into the curriculum (Campbell, Robinson, Neelands,
Hewston, & Massoli, 2007, p. 140). On the other hand, the social science
approach, with its emphasis on knowledge transmission, with its one-
size-ts-all model, has not generally promoted personalized learning.
Consider
the educaonal climate two decades aer the New Social Studies:
Following the publicaon of A Naon At Risk in 1983 (Naonal Commission
on Excellence in Educaon, 1983), the Bradley Commission on History in
Schools (1988) recommended a core curriculum for historic themes to be
taught in public schools. The standardizaon of historic knowledge le
lile room for person-
alized competencies
such as self-directed
learning and project-
based learning guided
by students’ interests.
Thornton (2008) observes
that the result in class-
rooms is a compromise
in which neither camp
has won: “By the
opening years of the
21st century, neither
view had secured a
monopoly on the K–12
social studies curriculum”
4
(p. 16). Thus, social studies teachers
have had and will likely connue to
have considerable leeway in promong
personalized learning in their classrooms.
Despite this incoherence in
approach to teaching social studies over the last century, one constant
theme throughout the history of the social studies is that it exists in
schools for the preparaon for democrac cizenship (Barber, 1984).
Thus, teacher educators must help
preservice teachers arculate their
vision for acve cizenship in a liberal democracy
and consider teaching
methods to bring this vision to pracce. It will likely come as no surprise
to readers that a variety of descripons of civic competence exist within
the literature on social studies educaon. The Naonal Council
for the
Social Studies (1994), the agship professional network for teachers
of this school subject, envisions students who have the “ability to
make
informed and reasoned decisions for the public good”
(p. vii).
Theorists have oered compeng and oen overlapping strategies
for
meeng this worthy goal. Some suggesons exist at the classroom
level, such as engaging students in crical thinking and value judgments
based on current aairs (Engle & Ochoa, 1988) and discussions of
controversial public issues (Hess, 2009). Other suggesons involve
school
wide reforms that are bigger than the purview of individual social
studies teachers, such as increasing the variety and frequency of interacon
among students who are culturally, linguiscally, and racially dierent
from one another (Parker, 2005). This brief sample only begins to cover
compeng and complementary perspecves on student civic competence
in the social studies.
The importance of preparing young people for cizenship in a
mulcultural democracy has been at the heart of social studies educaon
since the intercultural educaon movement in the early 1940’s (Evans,
2004). As a result, in colleges of educaon and teacher preparaon
programs
there is near universal agreement that preservice teachers
ought to be
trained to incorporate their students’ prior knowledge and
mulcultural
perspecves into classroom acvies (Banks, 2007). Over
the last century, the United States has experienced a staggering shi in
its ethnic and racial
demography; schools mirror this naonwide diversity,
presenng
challenges to teachers and teacher educators alike (Howard,
2010). Teach
ing the skills necessary to teach in diverse classrooms is by
no means a simple task, especially given the relave homogeneity of the
preservice teaching populaon and the diversity in the classrooms they
will serve (Howard, 2010). However, research has shown that White,
monolingual teachers can be successful in diverse classrooms when they
embrace culturally
relevant pedagogies
(Ladson-Billings, 2009; Parsons,
The importance of
preparing young
people for cizenship
in a mulcultural
democracy has been
at the heart of social
studies educaon
since the intercultural
educaon movement
in the early 1940’s.
(Evans, 2004)
5
2005). With its
em
phasis on student
choice and access
to a wide variety of
resources, personal-
ized learning oers
culturally relevant
pathways between
the content of
social studies curricula and the lived experiences of students (Gay, 2000;
Ladson-Billings, 2009). Marrying aspects of social studies educaon with
the approach outlined by
personalized learning oers opportunies
for
teacher educators to impart skills and
pracces necessary for teaching in
twenty
-rst-century classrooms.
Bringing Personalized Learning
Into Social Studies Teacher Educaon
Redding (2014) notes that personalized learning is not a parcularly
new approach to K–12 educaon. However, recent trends have caused
educators to rethink how they grapple with the limits of the tradional
school seng. An expanding curriculum, which demands greater depth
and sophiscaon of understanding by students and greater coverage of
content by teachers (Kaplan & Chan, 2011), requires that teachers
consider ways to implement out-of-school learning experiences. In
addion, movang students is among the biggest tests preservice
teachers face upon entering the classroom (LePage, Darling-Hammond,
Akar, Guerrez, Jenkins-Gunn, & Rosebrock, 2005, p. 333–335). These
challenges suggest that teachers must work to personalize their instrucon,
and take advantage of opportunies to tap into their students’ home and
school experiences. Personalized learning provides teachers and students
with the means to support connued classroom learning at home (Halpin,
2007; Leiringer & Cardellino, 2011), creang more me and space to aend
to
this expanding curriculum. In addion, personalized learning also encourages
students’ investment and movaon in their own learning (Deed et al.,
2014) by giving students freedom and choice. Thus the hope that novice
teachers are prepared to personalize their instruconal planning and
as
sessments has greatly increased in recent years.
As Redding (2014) argues, “Through personalized instrucon, the
teacher is auned to each student’s evolving personal competencies and
dierenates learning assignments accordingly” (p. 13). So it is imperave
“Through personal-
ized instrucon, the
teacher is auned
to each student’s
evolving personal
competencies and
dierenates
learning assignments
accordingly.”
– Redding, 2014
6
Table 1. Social Studies Teacher Education and Personalized Learning
Social Studies Approaches and Concepts
Methods and Outcomes of
Personalized Instruction
An inquiry approach to teaching social
studies casts students as problem solvers,
who investigate an historical problem
of interest to them, evaluate evidence,
construct an argument, and reect on their
learning
Can be cultivated in preservice social studies
teachers through innovative eldwork expe-
riences in museums, archives, and cultural
institutes
Development of student autonomy (Prain et
al., 2013; Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio,
& Turner, 2004)
Students shape their own learning path-
way (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Selwyn,
2009) and have agency to make important
decisions (Hargreaves, 2005)
Balance of structure and freedom (Deed et
al., 2014, p. 70)
Digital technologies provide access to a
wealth of primary sources for students at
home and in the classroom, supporting
independent inquiry projects
Preservice teacher attitudes are positively
impacted when teacher educators model the
effective use of online digital archives
Blended learning environments meet content
-
related learning goals in social studies
methodology courses and model techniques
in which preservice teachers can develop
their own open classrooms
Open classroom concept (Prain et al., 2013)
Student control over approaches to learning
and technology (Melhuish, 2011)
Flexibility in student and teacher use of
space and time (Halpin, 2007; Leiringer &
Cardellino, 2011)
Interactive digital technologies support
independent problem solving (Stefanou et
al., 2004)
A sociocultural perspective towards social
studies content recognizes students’ racial,
ethnic, gender, and class identities when
planning instruction
Preservice teachers must be exposed to case
studies that provide a “how to” guide for
personalizing curriculum around students’
sociocultural perspectives
Preservice teachers should know qualitative
research methods that will assist in the col-
lection of data about students’ sociocultural
perspectives
Incorporation of learners’ personal and so-
cial experiences into the school curriculum
(Campbell et al., 2007, p. 140)
Student investment in the curriculum (Deed
et al., 2014)
“Sociocultural authorization of individual
freedom, community interactivity, and ex-
ibility of time and space” in the classroom
(Deed et al., 2014, p. 67).
7
that teacher educators impart the skills necessary for pre-service teachers
to design learning opportunies with the development of students’
personal competencies as a complementary objecve to content
acquisi
on. Fortunately, there are many opportunies for
teacher
educators to infuse their methodology courses with personalized
learn
ing
and simultaneously help preservice social studies teachers avoid the
trap of coverage described at the outset of this guide. There are three,
interrelated areas where this is possible: developing inquiry pedagogies,
integraon of digital technologies, and teaching to students’ sociocultural
perspecves. Each of these areas links well with aspects of personalized
learning, and are easily transferable across the disciplines of social studies
classes (see Table 1).
Inquiry and Personalized Learning
While many social studies teachers nd that their students may
know more factual informaon about the past than the teachers assume
(Barton, 2008; Körber, 1997), it is unlikely that students understand how
historians develop accounts and interpretaons of the past (Pace, &
Middendorf, 2004; Shoemaker, 2013; VanSledright, 2010) . When asked
to describe how historical narraves are constructed, students may make
vague references to arfacts and primary sources, or assume accounts
are simply transferred from generaon to generaon through word
of mouth (Barton, 1997). The authoritave tone of most historical
textbooks, coupled with a lack of footnotes or citaons, reinforces the
noon
that historical texts have no authors, but are handed down from
some un
seen watcher who keeps track of notable past events. These
misconcepons are likely to connue on into college, meaning that
preservice social studies teachers may also be unable to arculate how
historical accounts are created, despite taking university-level history
courses (Hynd-Shanahan, Holschuh, & Hubbard, 2004). This phenomenon
poses a serious challenge for teacher educators. Due to the
aforemenoned
misconcepons, both students and preservice teachers are likely
to as
sume primary sources are truthful and complete accounts of past
events (Aerbach & VanSledright, 2001; Wineburg, 1991). It is hard to
imagine an ideal history curriculum that does not involve, at a minimum,
research of historical events using
some original sources. Likewise,
the
Common Core State Standards
Iniave (2010) calls for
students
to present historical
analyses
using both primary and
secondary sources (p. 61). This
Three areas where
teacher educators
can infuse their
methodology
courses
with personalized
learning:
• developing
inquiry pedagogies
• integraon of
digital technologies
• teaching to
students’ socio-
cultural perspecves
8
discrepancy between preservice social studies teachers’ knowledge of
the historical method and the expectaon that they will teach secondary
students to use primary and secondary sources creates an imperave
that teacher
educators prepare preservice social studies teachers to
work with prima
ry sources in a classroom seng.
One way to accomplish this task is focusing on inquiry as a
method for teaching social studies in teacher educaon coursework.
Barton and Levsk (2004) draw on Dewey (1910) in formulang their
conceptualizaon of inquiry: students should begin by dening a
problem, develop hypotheses about soluons to this problem, collect
empirical data relang to this problem, test their hypotheses, and nally,
reassess what they believe to be true based on the strength of evidence.
Inquiry is a powerful method because it levels the playing eld in diverse
classrooms. Reliance on commonly-used social studies curricular materials,
such as textbooks, is likely to alienate minority students because such
materials fail to recognize diverse frameworks for understanding and
interpreng the past (Epstein, 2009). Inquiry, however, by having students
pursue topics that are relevant to their personal histories, expects all
students to draw from their own prior knowledge and home lives. As a
result, “inquiry should enable those whose experiences have not tradi-
onally been represented in the ocial curriculum to deepen and expand
their historical understanding rather than simply to remain distanced from
school history” (Barton & Levsk, 2009, p. 190). [N.B. Inquiry is not inter-
changeable with tradional research projects, though research projects
may be a manifestaon of this approach to teaching social studies.]
At its core, this student-centered approach is what makes inquiry
an inherently personalized learning strategy. Students pursue historical
quandaries of personal interest while “asking quesons, gathering and
evaluang relevant evidence, and reaching conclusions based on that
evidence” (Barton & Levsk, 2004 p. 188), all with the goal of discovery, a
key component of personalized learning. The subjects of inquiry hold personal
relevance for students, thus they are intrinsically movated to complete
inquiry-related tasks (VanSledright, 2002). Likewise, this approach is
consistent with how people pursue new interests in their
lives outside
of school. Inquiry allows students
to make connecons between their
school learning and home lives, while developing twenty-rst-century
skills. In addion, technology oers pathways for supporng students’
work in inquiry projects. Milson (2002)
and Lipscomb (2002) examined
students’
uses of WebQuests as structured
inquiries.
Each
of the projects they invesgated
provided scaolds for the students’ web
searches and engaged the students in
“[I]nquiry should
enable those whose
experiences have not
tradionally been
represented in the
ocial curriculum
to
deepen and expand
their historical under-
standing
rather than
simply to remain
distanced from school
history”
– Barton & Levsk, 2009
According to Barton
and Levsk’s
conceptualizaon
of inquiry (2004),
students should:
•
dene a problem
•
develop
hypotheses
about soluons
to this problem
•
collect empirical
data relang to
this problem
•
test their
hypotheses,
•
reassess what
they believe to
be true based
on the strength
of evidence
9
focused research tasks. Milson (2002) notes that students oen engaged
in a path-of-least-resistance strategy to nding primary sources for their
projects, copying from other groups or using web searches instead of
the sites prescribed through the WebQuest. However, he found that the
teacher in his study used this setback as an opportunity to have students
think about their own thinking, promong metacognive skills essenal
for historical thinking (Wineburg, 1991).
There are a number of strategies teacher educators can use
to prepare preservice teachers to ulize inquiry in their classrooms.
Preservice teachers should rst be made aware of the requisite parts of
inquiry in the social studies classroom:
• Students should know that inquiry is both a method and
a goal. Inquiry is a technique that helps students learn the
content of the curriculum, but equally important to students
is the real-world, civic, decision-making skills promoted by
inquiry (Barton & Levsk, 2004, p. 188–189).
• Students should be engaged in all aspects of inquiry,
including
connecng the content to their previous knowledge,
developing a meaningful inquiry queson, nding primary
and secondary sources, drawing conclusions based on exisng
and new knowledge, sharing learning with others, and
reecng on their new learning (Stripling, 2009). It is common
for social studies teachers to assume that exposing students
to primary sources is engaging them in inquiry. An analysis
of primary sources is an important part of the process of
inquiry. However, disengaged from asking relevant quesons
and drawing meaningful conclusions, this analysis lacks the
reecve quality that makes inquiry a powerful, personalized
learning experience.
• A document-based queson assessment may be used in the
service of inquiry but is not, in and of itself, an example of
inquiry (Barton and Levsk, 2004). Document-based quesons,
which prompt students to answer using their own knowledge
and a provided list of primary sources, fundamentally assess
students’ ability to analyze sources. Students are not expected
to formulate quesons
based on their own interests, nor are
they asked to evaluate the usefulness of sources, two key
aspects of inquiry.
• Teachers must assist
students in developing
meaningful quesons
(Woyshner, 2010).
According to Stripling
(2009), students
should be engaged in
all aspects of inquiry,
including:
•
connecng the
content to their
previous knowledge
•
developing a
meaningful inquiry
queson
•
nding primary
and secondary
sources
•
drawing conclusions
based on exisng
and new knowledge
•
sharing learning
with others
•
reecng on their
new learning
10
I recommend having preservice social
studies teachers examine
and discuss exemplars
of inquiry approaches to
social studies educaon.
An
inquiry-based approach is likely very dierent
from the type of social studies
classes they experienced in their own educaon (Loewen, 2010). Given
that inservice teachers are likely to emulate what they recall from
their own schooling (Lore, 1975), it is helpful for preservice teachers
to examine successful examples
of inquiry in acon. One example
is
Keeping the Struggle Alive (Anand, Fine, Perkins, &
Surrey,
2002), a book
describing an inquiry project conducted by students in a
Montclair, New
Jersey, public middle school on the history of desegregaon
in
their town.
Though social studies
textbooks typically portray racism
as a southern
problem, the northern town of Montclair also struggled to desegregate
during the Civil Rights Movement (like many other locales north of the
Mason–Dixon Line). Students
began by reading local newspa
per arcles
from 1947–1972. From
their inial readings of
these primary sources,
students individually
idened topics of
interest and sketched out
research quesons.
During
whole-
group instrucon,
students
learned about
the events
of the Civil Rights
Movement,
pung the local
primary sources they were
reading in a naonal context.
Next, students idened
“key players,” or local residents of im
portance, during Montclair’s
desegregaon process. Students then conducted oral history interviews
related to the quesons they asked, and had frank and dicult discussions
with their classmates about the struggle
for equal access to educaon in
their town. Preservice social studies teachers will see that this project was
inquiry-oriented and personalized in the quesons students asked, the
skills of invesgaon they developed, and, perhaps most powerfully, their
reecons: Some students began to ask dicult quesons about their
own schools and lives, while for others this project reiterated a history
of struggle that had been their family’s history for generaons. However,
all students were forced to assess their own relaonship to a legacy of
discriminaon in their local community.
Inial teacher cercaon programs can also cra innovave
eld
experiences that challenge tradional noons of history educaon,
develop noons of inquiry founded on the historical method, and help
11
preservice teachers construct
a philosophy of educaon ed
to personalized
learning.
One such example
is the
Cultural Fieldwork Iniave
at Temple University
(Paerson & Woyshner, in press; Woyshner, Reidell, & Brasof, 2013).
A perpetual challenge for teacher educators is helping preservice
social studies teachers make the leap
from the content knowledge
they
have learned in their subject maer courses to developing inquiry-
oriented projects using the historical method in their educaon courses
(McDiarmid & Vinten-Johansen, 2000). With these challenges in mind,
the Cultural Fieldwork Iniave places preservice social studies teachers
in Philadelphia-area
museums, archives, and cultural sites to intern in a
variety of roles. Par
cipants in the Cultural Fieldwork Iniave develop
curriculum materials around documents and arfacts in their site’s
collec
ons, tutor
elementary and secondary students who visit the
collecons while compleng their own inquiry-oriented projects, or
assist
archivists in nding and cataloguing primary sources. Programmac
reviews, which
include examinaons of preservice social studies
teachers’ lesson plan
ning and reecve journals, as well as interviews
with mentors at host sites, indicate that parcipang in history in other
contexts—outside of their university and secondary classrooms—
convinces many preservice teachers of the value of having students
conduct personalized inquiries.
These eldwork experiences also make
them aware of the variety of digi
tal resources available to social studies
teachers through museums and cultural sites (Paerson & Woyshner, in
press).
Digital Technology, Personalized Learning,
and the Social Studies
The possibilies for personalizing
learning and extending instrucon
outside of the tradional classroom have been expanded through evolving
technologies:
Personalized learning is enabled by smart e-learning systems,
which help dynamically track and manage the learning
needs of all students, and provide a plaorm to access
myriad engaging learning content, resources, and learning
opportunies needed to meet each student’s needs every-
where at any me, but which are not all available within
the four walls of the tradional classroom. (Wolf, 2010, p. 10)
12
While the elements of personalized learning may be familiar
to
many teachers, advances in digital technologies can greatly aid
in collecng data on assessments in order to track student learning,
and beer plan the delivery of content in and out of the classroom.
Of course, personalized learning can take place without
the use of modern technology, but innovaons in social net-
working, media-rich content, data collecon and analysis tools,
and blending learning environments (among many other advances) have
signicantly enhanced the toolkits teachers use in planning instrucon
and measuring student growth (Halpin, 2007; Leiringer & Cardellino,
2011; Prain et al., 2013). There is no need to fear that the importance of
technology signals that the fundamentals of teaching social studies are
incompable with personalized learning: “Technology is not seen as a
replacement for the tradional classroom, but rather as a powerful tool
to enhance what is already proven pedagogy” (Redding, 2014, p. 123).
In personalizing their instrucon, teachers use technology to enhance
classroom relaonships and extend learning beyond the four walls of the
classroom (Sandler, 2012). Likewise, social studies teachers, much like
their peers in other content areas, report that their teaching pracces
are
not signicantly altered by the presence of technology, but they use
technology to augment their current instruconal rounes (Roberts &
Butler, 2014). This reality makes it crucial that social studies teacher
edu
cators integrate technology in their course work.
How have modern tech-
nologies impacted social studies
classrooms?
Not surprisingly,
one common use of technology
by social studies teachers
is the
integraon of digized primary
sources into lessons and assess-
ments.
Social studies teachers
have reported that using digital
primary sources is more me
consuming than tradional
classroom-based primary sources
(Hicks, Doolile & Lee, 2004). However, when a parcular primary source
is not available in paper format, social studies teachers are likely to nd
success in seeking out a digital version (Marri, 2005), providing more
exibility in preparing lessons. The picture that emerges from the research
on social studies teachers’ integraon of digital primary sources into their
instrucon suggests that the choice they make is not as simple as using
these resources or not. Rather, content-specic professional development
or training in lesson planning using digital archives, such as those at the
“Technology is not seen as a
replacement for the tradional
classroom, but rather as a
powerful tool to enhance what
is already proven pedagogy”
– Redding, 2014
13
Library of Congress (n.d.) or the Naonal Archives
(n.d.), and access to a classroom projector or
computer lab signicantly impacts whether or
not social studies teachers will integrate digital
resources in their instrucon and assessment
(Friedman, 2006; Marri, 2005).
The impact of training and access to resources
appears to be aected by the individual teachers’
established pedagogical approach (DeWi, 2007;
Swan & Hicks, 2007). Research on the factors
that inuence teachers’ use of technology in
their pracce indicates that technology is most
oen used to enhance exisng rounes (Cuban,
2001; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). This nding
suggests that teachers will be more likely to
ulize technology in service of personalized
learning if they are predisposed towards person-
alized learning in the rst place. This signals the
crucial role of teacher
educators in exposing preservice teachers
to approaches in social studies
educaon
that embrace personalized learning.
As noted
earlier, teachers who have had success in
ulizing web-based resources in inquiry-
related projects have had to carefully scaold
the students’ acvies (Milson, 2002). When
teachers assume the funcon of technology
is
to simply bring a value-added element to
students’ learning, such as colorful images that make a lecture more
engaging (DeWi, 2007), they overlook the variety of ways technology
can be used to personalize instrucon to student learning proles, prior
knowledge, and sociocultural backgrounds (Stefanou et al., 2004).
Unfortunately, it appears as though the integraon of technology
into social studies methodology courses has not been widely adopted
by teacher educators (Bolick, Berson, Cous, & Heinecke, 2003). In the
same way that social studies teachers may erroneously assume that their
students are digital naves, and therefore more “tech savvy” than they,
teacher educators must not assume that preservice teachers come to
their courses equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to personalize
their instrucon and assessment through technology. Preservice teachers
bring various levels of competence and condence in their technological
prowess and require the same amount of instrucon as their inservice
counterparts. Molebash (2004) found that, when teacher educators
14
mod
el the use of online digital archives in inquiry-related acvies, it pos-
ively impacts preservice teachers’ atudes towards using digital tech-
nologies in their lesson planning. Thus teacher educators need to
model
innovave approaches to planning and assessment through tech
nology
as they relate to personalized learning.
Teacher educators should not feel limited by the physical walls of
their university classrooms in aiming to meet the twin objecves of
modeling personalized learning and integrang technology. Redding
(2014) argues that a powerful tool for personalizaon of learning is
blending online and
tradional in-person
learning environments.
While the research on
outcomes related to
blended learning is
notoriously dicult to
generalize (Sparks, 2015),
Means and colleagues
(2013) concluded that
“blended approaches
have been more eecve than instrucon oered enrely in face-to-face
mode” (p. 35). Their meta-analysis of 45 studies compared purely online,
face-to-face, and blended learning outcomes for K–12 students. They
found that personalizing learning through blended environments provides
more me for student engagement with material, increased student in-
teracon, and the incorporaon of addional resources.
Teacher educators have also found success in ulizing computer-
mediated technologies to develop both content goals and asynchronous,
online discussion skills in future social studies teachers. For example,
Merryeld (2003) designed a blended course on global educaon, which
employed electronic mail, a course listserv, and online chats to
connect 92 American teachers with 22 cultural consultants
from around the world. She argues that the blended
learning environment acted as a social veil: “The
facelessness of online interacon frees people to
interact without at least some of the inhibions they
have in face-to-face classrooms” (p. 161). As a result
of this format, teachers in her study experienced true
cross-cultural learning when they admied to prejudices
and asked the cultural consultants dicult quesons they
might not feel comfortable asking in face-to-face interacons.
Teachers in Merryeld’s course not only developed global
perspecves, but also parcipated in technologically supported
Means et al. (2013)
found that person-
alizing
learning
through blended
environments provides
more me for student
engagement with
material, increased
student interacon,
and the incorporaon
of addional resources.
15
personalized learning. The course assignments drew heavily from the
teachers’ personal backgrounds and experiences, and interacons were
designed to promote teachers’ cognive, metacognive, and social and
emoonal competencies. While Merryeld cauons that instructors must
provide thoughul scaolds for the online components of this course,
her experiences and the research of other teacher educators (Larson &
Keiper, 2002; Mason & Berson, 2000; Zong, 2009) indicate what is pos-
sible when teacher educators model the intersecon of blended learning
environments and personalized learning in the social studies methodol-
ogy course: student-centered instrucon, increased me for thoughul
discussion, and resulng greater depth of understanding.
Sociocultural Perspecves and
Movaonal Competencies
Perhaps the most powerful opportunity personalized learning
brings to social studies teachers is the chance to make meaningful
con
necons between the content of their curricula and the communies
their students inhabit. Personalized learning is a pedagogy that advocates
honoring students’ sociocultural backgrounds and their home lives,
ex
pecng that teachers will know their students personally, respect their
experiences outside the classroom, aempt to connect with their parents
and guardians, and use the knowledge gained from these interacons
when developing curricula. This is not a simple task: It suggests that the
teacher’s job is not limited to his or her interacons with students in the
school building. For teacher educators, the key is establishing an atude
in preservice teachers that likely contrasts with the educaon they expe-
rienced as students: They must embrace the idea of drawing on students’
interests and sociocultural idenes. In so doing, preservice teachers
will
be engaging students’ movaonal competency by tapping into stu-
dents’ lived experiences and cultural prac-
ces, making
mastery of curricular content
and skills
aainable (Baines & Stanley,
2003;
Paludan, 2006). Students’ willingness
to engage in literacy-based tasks, especially
the analysis of challenging primary sources
in social
studies classes, is connected to
their
teach
ers’ ability to foster this sort of
movaon (Yazzie-Mintz, 2010).
Inslling in preservice teachers the
value of developing curricula and learning
experiences that honor students’ cultures
and sociocultural perspecves is a crucial
What is possible
when teacher
educators model
the intersecon of
blended learning
environments and
personalized learning
in the social studies
methodology course:
• student-centered
instrucon
• increased me
for thoughul
discussion
• resulng greater
depth of under
standing.
Personalized learning is
a
pedagogy that advocates
honoring students’ socio-
cultural
backgrounds and
their home lives, expecting
that teachers will know their
students personally, respect
their experiences outside
the
classroom, attempt to
connect
with their parents
and guardians,
and use the
knowledge gained from these
interactions when developing
curricula.
16
objecve for teacher educators to meet, as it is common for students of
color to feel alienated from the content of tradional social studies class-
es, which rely heavily on textbooks and rote memorizaon of names and
dates (Loewen, 2010). Epstein (1998, 2001, 2009) has
conducted qualita-
ve and quantave research on students’ interpreve
stances towards
history, analyzing the historical interpretaons of 100 elementary and
secondary students. She found that Black and White students provided
markedly dierent interpretaons of events relang to racial diversity and
democracy. Black students tended to idenfy polical and civil rights as
having been fought for over me, rather than given by the Founding Fa-
thers. On the other hand, White students idened the Founding Fathers’
role in giving all Americans rights. Black students were more likely to
aribute historical authority to parents, community members, and docu-
mentaries produced
by Black directors and were suspicious of textbooks
and curricular material.
Conversely, White students believed their White
teachers presented an unbiased mulcultural history due to the inclusion
of informaon about all racial groups. The dierence in interpretaons
appears rooted in home
and community presentaons of these topics,
in parcular the perspecves parents impart on their children
(Epstein,
2009).
As a result of her research, Epstein argues that social studies
teachers should embrace a sociocultural perspecve that supports
students’ racial, ethnic, gender, and class idenes. Planning lessons with
students’ sociocultural perspecves in mind is about personalizaon of
learning, working to build a bridge between the learning that occurs at
home and school. The White teachers in Epstein’s studies appeared unaware
or unconcerned that their students of color had interpretaons of U.S.
history that oen were inconsistent with the ocial curriculum. Classroom
pedagogies tended to conrm or disconrm students’ exisng sociocultural
perspecves, depending on the sociocultural perspecve represented in
the curriculum, demonstrang that, for students of color, home learning
about history was oen incongruent with the mandated school curricula.
Dimitriadis (2000) and Grant (2003) reached similar conclusions about the
impact of outside-the-classroom experiences on students’ sociocultural
perspecves and classroom learning.
Planning lessons
with students’
sociocultural
perspecves in mind
is about personal-
izaon of learning,
working to build a
bridge
between the
learning
that occurs
at home and school.
17
A lack of personalizaon
is a shortcoming that impacts
not only the learning of students
of color. Tradional textbooks
oen fail to present the experi-
ences of women throughout
history, relying
on the “great men” approach to history. Textbooks are
more likely to present polical and economic history, rather than social
history and, by extension, women’s history (Loewen, 2010). When women
are menoned
in textbooks and curricular materials, they tend to be the
wives of presidents.
While relegang women’s roles to that of spouses of
important leaders highlights the glaring gap in success in electoral polics
between men and women, this is a topic rarely discussed in these same
textbooks (Avery & Simmons, 2000/2001; Webster, 2000). Relying on a
tradional textbook for curricular planning sends the message that the
contribuons of women—such as the maintenance of the social order,
community building, and educaon of the young—are not considered
historically signicant. As a result, “not only do women’s lives not count
in
the story of civilizaon, but men’s lives ‘stand in’ for women’s lives,
essenally rendering women invisible to history” (Crocco, 1997, p. 32).
It
is no surprise, then, that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and
queer (LGBTQ) students are also unlikely to hear voices or read about
experiences similar to their own in history class. The absence of represen-
taon in curriculum reinforces a heteronormave stance towards history
(Schmidt, 2010). However, it is also important for preservice teachers to
understand that personalizaon is not just for the benet of students of
color, female students, and LGBTQ students. The methods of personalizaon
described in this secon “enable White students to see that phenomena
such as race, class, and gender signicantly shape who is in polical oce
and who is in polical prison…” (Epstein, 2001, p. 47).
Let’s consider the implicaons of these ndings for rst-year
social studies teachers struggling to cover everything in his or her cur-
riculum. These teachers may allow the textbook to guide planning,
missing out on many opportunies to personalize the content with rich
narraves and primary sources that represent the diversity of the class-
room. Loewen (2010) laments this approach to teaching history, argu-
ing, “Unfortunately, the more teachers cover, the less kids remember.
Fragmenng history into unconnected ‘facts’ praccally guarantees that
students will not be able to relate many of these terms to their own lives”
(p. 19). As an andote to the coverage challenge, one strategy Loewen
recommends is that students conduct research into local historical top-
ics of interest to them, using inquiry and technology. Further, Loewen
argues that students’ parents and guardians must be acve parcipants
“Such an approach
would enable White
students to see that
phenomena such
as race, class, and
gender signicantly
shape who is in
polical oce and
who is in polical
prison, who has
access to quality
health care, schools,
and colleges and
who does not.”
– Epstein, 2001
18
in the research process. Because key
elements of the students’ work will
take place outside of school, Loewen
observes that parents and guardians
must not only be aware of expectaons
for the inquiry projects, but must
also provide both moral and material
support. He recommends teachers
host a “Parent Academy,” in which
parents and guardians visit the classroom and learn about the research
project. Because students’ rst history lessons will happen at home
(Ep
stein, 2009), parental involvement reinforces the noon that the
history learned in school is as important as the history learned over the
kitchen table, at holiday gatherings, and other events where young people
are likely to learn history from family members. Parents can also assist
the teacher in developing a list of web resources relang to their child’s
topic of interest. Most importantly, the Parent Academy is an easy way for
social studies teachers to make vital links to students’ families. These links
provide the opportunity for teachers and parents to work collaboravely
to shape inquiry projects that tap into students’ personal, familial, and
cultural histories, further personalizing the learning students will experience
by
honoring the sociocultural backgrounds of students. According to Loewen,
combining parental involvement with local history inquiry projects
has
parcularly powerful potenal. “In the process of doing history on their
own family, school, or community, students will learn that their lives have
larger meaning” (p. 95).
Preservice social studies teachers must understand that, though
the approaches recommended by Epstein (2009) and Loewen (2010) are
likely dierent from what they experienced as students themselves, these
new strategies will help them escape the trap of coverage and increase
students’ movaon to learn new content and skills. Preservice teachers
must also be exposed to case studies of teachers who have engaged their
students’ sociocultural perspecves in other social studies disciplines.
These case studies may disrupt preconceived noons about classroom
teaching by providing preservice teachers with evidence that engaging
students’ sociocultural pracces can be done, and may act as a
“how to”
guide for integrang these strategies into their own pracce
(Hammerness,
Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2007). For example, a
common concern
for preservice social studies teachers is how they will
support the learning of English language learners in a curriculum that
includes much reading and wring. Salinas, Franquiz, and Reidel (2008)
have documented the work of one exemplary geography teacher
who
developed discussions, map acvies, and graphic organizers that
“In the process of
doing history on
their own family,
school, or community,
students will learn
that their lives have
larger meaning.”
– Loewen, 2010
19
allowed
her recently-arrived
immigrant students to explore
complicated topics such
as polical and physical
geography, human relaonships
to the land,
ethnic diversity,
and conceptualizaons of
cizenship through their
personal histories and
sociocultural experiences.
As Salinas and colleagues (2008)
argue, “World geography
educaon – as exemplied in
Ms. Davila’s classroom – not
only creates academic opportunies for late-arrival immigrant students,
it also honors and authencally integrates mulcultural idenes into the
curriculum” (p. 76).
If teacher educators aim to have preservice teachers in their
program enact a substanal level of personalizaon, they may need to
build qualitave research methods into their inial cercaon course
work. Moll and colleagues (1992) recommend having teachers conduct
research studies of their students’ home lives to beer understand their
funds of knowledge. These projects link university researchers with
secondary teachers, and involve “analyzing the social history of the
households, their origins and development, and most prominently for our
purposes, the labor history of the families, which reveals the accumulated
bodies of knowledge of the households…” (p. 133). The goal is developing
a “thick” student–teacher relaonship, “taking into account or having
knowledge about the mulple spheres of acvity within which the child
is enmeshed” (p. 133–134). Teachers who parcipated in this project
de
vel
oped more sophiscated understandings of their students, their
families, and their social worlds. The teachers then developed inquiry
projects that were informed by their students’ social networks. Parents
contributed to the students’ work and became a resource for both the
student and teacher. While an ambious project, it is an example of the
power of personalized learning when social studies projects are thought-
fully enacted and are responsive to students’ sociocultural idenes.
Students who were otherwise disengaged from academic learning were
interpreng crical issues in social studies educaon and developing
inquiry projects of their own. Essenal to the success of this project was
the “individual freedom, community interacvity, and exibility of me
and space” students experienced (Deed et al., 2014, p. 67), hallmarks of
personalized learning.
“Personalised
learning can be
thought of, at the
‘classroom’ level,
as a sociocultural
authorisaon of
individual freedom,
community interac-
vity, and exibility
of me and space.”
– Deed et al., 2014
20
Conclusion
One potenal concern preservice teachers might express about
personalized learning is the noon that these methods will fail to prepare
students to meet district- or state-mandated curricular goals. This concern
is understandable but easily soothed. The techniques described in this
guide are a set of tools preservice teachers should be taught to use to
insll understanding in their students. In order to foster understanding,
Blythe (1999) recommends building curriculum around generave topics.
A generave topic is central to one or more discipline or domain in a given
school subject, is accessible to students, and has real world applicaons.
Preservice teachers should be taught to weave together units in
their
curriculum by emphasizing the qualies that make each unit generave.
This will assist the teacher in personalizing content that might feel distant
to students at rst blush. A student in a rural classroom might not feel any
personal connecon to the topic of desegregaon. But the generavity of
desegregaon is easily connected to ideals students feel personally connected
to, such as equity, jusce, and the quest for a beer life.
In addion, making generave topics the foundaon of a curriculum
provides coherence in linking seemingly disparate student-selected inquiry
projects to essenal understandings found in state standards. In this way,
a student’s oral history project about his or her family’s experiences in
their
community also becomes a lesson on evaluang primary sources
and developing an argument using evidence (Common Core State Standards
Ini
ave, 2010). It is up to the individual teacher to reveal those connecons
to his or her students. As noted earlier, a key aspect of inquiry
lessons
is students’ reecon on their new learning (Stripling, 2009). It is during
those reecons, be they journal entries or in-class discussions, that
teachers must make explicit how their students’ inquiry work is connected
to the development of new skills and a deeper understanding of history.
During their rst years in the classroom, many social studies
teachers panic, consumed by the overwhelming amount of material to
be covered (to say nothing of the many compeng obligaons teachers
have) and oen aempt to imitate the strategies of the teachers they
had as students (Lore, 1975). This speaks to the crucial work of teacher
educators in providing preservice teachers with a coherent framework for
building lessons and curriculum. When a preservice teacher learns about
content planning and assessment in the context of personalized learning,
the theories of personalized learning can guide his or her approach to
student–teacher relaonships in the classroom. As a result, the teacher’s
central goal is not covering as much material as possible, but presenng
important content that is relevant to every student. The teacher has
a skill set to develop meaningful relaonships with students and can
cra
inquiry assignments that tap into their cognive strengths and
21
sociocul
tural perspecves. Further, he or she is also comfortable and
competent in ulizing digized primary sources and computer-mediated
technologies for extending learning outside of the classroom. Teacher
educators have a dicult task in knowing where to begin to facilitate this
change in approach for preparing preservice teachers. The elements of
personalized learning make up a framework that is complementary with
the disciplines, topics, and skills that fall under the umbrella of social
studies educaon.
References
Aerbach, P., & VanSledright, B. (2001). Hath! Doth! What? Middle
graders reading innovave history text. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 44(8), 696–707.
Alvermann, D. E., Gillis, V. R., & Phelps, S. F. (2012). Content area reading
and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classrooms. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Anand, B., Fine, M., Perkins, T., & Surrey, D. S. (2002). Keeping the struggle
alive: Studying desegregaon in our town. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Avery, P. G., & Simmons, A. M. (2000/2001). Civic life as conveyed in United
States civic and history textbooks. Internaonal Journal of Social
Studies, 12(Fall/Winter), 105–130.
Baines, L. A., & Stanley, G. K. (2003). Disengagement and loathing in high
school. Educaonal Horizons, 81(4), 165–168.
Banks, J. A. (2007). Cizenship educaon and diversity in a global age.
In J. A. Banks (Ed.), An Introducon to Mulcultural Educaon (pp.
17–29). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Parcipatory polics for a new age.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1977). Dening the social studies.
Arlington, VA: Naonal Council for the Social Studies.
Barton, K. C. (1997). “I just kinda know”: Elementary students’ ideas
about historical evidence. Theory and Research in Social Educaon,
25(4), 407–430.
Barton, K. C. (2008). Research on students’ ideas about history. In L. S.
Levsk & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies
educaon (pp. 239–258). New York, NY: Routledge.
Barton, K. C., & Levsk, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common
good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Blythe, T. (1999). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
22
Bolick, C., Berson, M., Cous, C., & Heinecke, W. (2003). Technology
applicaons in social studies teacher educaon: A survey of social
studies methods faculty. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Educaon, 3(3), 300–309.
Bradley Commission on History in Schools. (1988). Building a history
curriculum: Guidelines for teaching history in schools. Washington,
DC: The Educaon Excellence Network.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of educaon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Campbell, R., Robinson, W., Neelands, J., Hewston, R., & Massoli, L.
(2007). Personalised learning: Ambiguies in theory and pracce.
Brish Journal of Educaonal Studies, 55(2), 135–154.
Common Core State Standards Iniave. (2010). Common Core State
Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social
Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from hp://www.
corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Crocco, M. S. (1997). Making me for women’s history…When your
survey course is already lled to overowing. Social Educaon, 61(1),
32–37.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments,
social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for
connecng formal and informal learning. Internet and Higher
Educaon, 15(1), 3–8.
Deed, C., Cox, P., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keee, M., et al.
(2014). Personalised learning in the open classroom: The mutuality
of teacher and student agency. Internaonal Journal of Pedagogies
and Learning, 9(1), 66–75.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York, NY: D.C. Heath.
DeWi, S. W. (2007). Dividing the digital age: Instruconal use of
computers in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Educaon,
35(2), 277–304.
Dimitriadis, G. (2000). ’Making history go’ at a local community center:
Popular media and the construcon of historical knowledge among
African American youth. Theory and Research in Social Educaon,
28(1), 40–64.
Engle, S., & Ochoa, A. (1988). Educaon for democrac cizenship:
Decision making in the social studies. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Epstein, T. (1998). Deconstrucng dierences in African-American and
European-American adolescents’ perspecves on U.S. history.
Curriculum Inquiry, 28(4), 397–423.
23
Epstein, T. (2001). Racial identy and young people’s perspecves on
social educaon. Theory Into Pracce, 40(1), 42–47.
Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreng naonal history: Race, identy, and
pedagogy in classrooms and communies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Evans, R. (2004). The social studies wars. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Friedman, A. (2006). World history teachers’ use of digital primary
sources: The eect of training. Theory and Research in Social
Educaon, 34(1), 124–141.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and
pracce. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and tesng in U.S.
high school classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Halpin, D. (2007). Utopian spaces of ‘robust hope’: The architecture and
nature of progressive learning environments. Asia Pacic Journal of
Teacher Educaon, 35(3), 243–255.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). How
teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, D. (2005). Personalised learning – 4: Curriculum and advice &
guidance. London, England: Specialist Schools Trust.
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hicks, D., Doolile, P., & Lee, J.K. (2004). History and social studies teachers’
use of classroom and web-based historical primary sources. Theory
and Research in Social Educaon, 32(2), 213–247.
Howard, T. (2010). Why race and culture maer in schools: Closing the
achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Hynd-Shanahan, C., Holschuh, J., & Hubbard, B. (2004). Thinking like a
historian: College students’ reading of mulple historical documents.
Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 141–176.
Kaplan, C., & Chan, R. (2011). Time well spent: Eight powerful pracces of
successful me expanded schools. Boston, MA: Naonal Center on
Time and Learning.
Körber, A. (1997). Chronological knowledge, historical associaons and
historico-polico concepts. In M. Angvik & B. von Borries (Eds.),
Youth and history: A comparave European survey on historical
consciousness and polical atudes among adolescents, Vol. A:
Descripon (pp. 196–152). Hamburg, Germany: Körber-Sung.
Ladson -Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of
African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24
Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded
electronic discussion: Learning in two arenas. Contemporary Issues
in Technology and Teacher Educaon, 2(1). Retrieved from hp://
www.citejournal.org/volume-2/issue-1-02/general/classroom-dis-
cussion-and-threaded-electronic-discussion-learning-in-two-arenas/
Leiringer, R., & Cardellino, P. (2011). Schools for the twenty-rst century:
School design and educaonal transformaon. Brish Educaonal
Research Journal, 37(6), 915–934.
LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Akar, H., Guerrez, C., Jenkins-Gunn,
E., & Rosebrock, K. (2005). Classroom management. In L. Darling-
Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 327–357).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Library of Congress. (n.d.). Digital collecons & services. Retrieved from
hp://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html
Lipscomb, G. (2002). Eighth graders’ impressions of the Civil War: Using
technology in the history classroom. Educaon Communicaon and
Informaon, 2(1), 51–67.
Loewen, J. W. (2010). Teaching what really happened: How to avoid the
tyranny of textbooks & get students excited about doing history.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lore, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. London, England:
University of Chicago Press.
Marri, A. R. (2005). Educaonal technology as a tool for mulcultural
democrac educaon: The case of one U.S. history teacher in an
underresourced high school. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Educaon, 4(4), 395–409.
Mason, C. L., & Berson, M. J. (2000). Computer mediated communicaon
in elementary social studies methods. Theory and Research in Social
Educaon, 28(4), 527–545.
McDiarmid, G. W., & Vinten-Johansen, P. (2000). A catwalk across the
great divide: Redesigning the history teaching methods course. In P.
N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and
learning history: Naonal and internaonal perspecves (pp. 156–
177). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The eecveness of
online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.
Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Melhuish, C. (2011). Methods for understanding the relaonships
between learning and space. In A. Boddington & J. Boys (Eds.),
Re-shaping learning: A crical reader: The future of learning spaces
in postcompulsory educaon (pp. 19–31). Roerdam, The Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.
25
Merryeld, M. M. (2003). Like a veil: Cross-cultural experienal learning
online. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Educaon,
3(2), 146–171.
Milson, A. J. (2002). The Internet and inquiry learning: Integrang medium
and method in a sixth grade social studies classroom. Theory and
Research in Social Educaon, 30(3), 330–353.
Molebash, P. E. (2004). Preservice teacher percepons of a technology-
enriched methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Educaon, 3(4), 412–432.
Moll, L. C., Aman, C., Ne, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge
for teaching: Using a qualitave approach to connect homes and
classrooms. Theory Into Pracce, 31(2), 132–141.
Naonal Archives. (n.d.). The Naonal Archives experience: DocsTeach.
Retrieved from hp://docsteach.org/
Naonal Commission on Excellence in Educaon. (1983). A naon at risk:
The imperave for educaonal reform. Washington, DC: Author.
Naonal Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectaons of excellence:
Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: Author.
Pace, D., & Middendorf, J. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: Helping students
learn disciplinary ways of thinking. New direcons for teaching and
learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paludan, J. (2006). Personalised learning 2025. In The Organisaon for
Economic Co-operaon and Development (Ed.), Personalizing
educa
on (pp. 83–100). Paris, France, The Organisaon for Economic
Co-operaon and Development.
Parker, W. C. (2005). Teaching against idiocy. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5),
344–351.
Parsons, E. C. (2005). From caring as a relaon to culturally relevant car-
ing: A White teacher’s bridge to Black students. Equity & Excellence in
Educaon, 38(1), 25–34.
Paerson, T., & Woyshner, C. (in press). History in other contexts:
Pre-service history teachers’ eld placements at cultural instuons.
The History Teacher.
Pennsylvania Department of Educaon. (2009). Academic standards for
history. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., et al.
(2013). Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. Brish Educaon-
al Research Journal, 39(4), 654–676.
Redding, S. (2013). Through the student’s eyes: A perspecve on personalized
learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University (Center on Innovaons
in Learning).
26
Redding, S. (2014). Geng personal: The promise of personalized
learning. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on
innovaons in learning (pp. 113–129). Charloe, NC: Informaon Age
Publishing.
Roberts, S. L., & Butler, B. M. (2014). Consumers and producers in the
social studies classroom: How Web 2.0 technology can break the
cycle of “teachers and machines”. In W. Russell (Ed.), Digital social
studies (pp. 147–166). Greenwich, CT: Informaon Age Publishing.
Salinas, C., Franquiz, M. E., Reidel, M., (2008). Teaching world geography
to late-arrival immigrant students: Highlighng pracce and content.
The Social Studies, 99(2), 71–76.
Sandler, S. (2012). People v. ‘personalizaon’: Retaining the human
element in the high-tech era of educaon. Educaon Week, 31(22),
20–22.
Schmidt, S. J. (2010). Queering social studies. The role of social studies in
normalizing cizens and sexuality in the common good. Theory and
Research in Social Educaon, 38(3), 314–335.
Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ educaon-related use
of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174.
Shoemaker, N. (2013). Where Is the History Lab Course? Retrieved from
hp://www.historians.org/perspecves/issues/2009/0901/0901tea2.cfm
Sparks, S. D. (2015). Research uneven, tough to interpret. Educaon Week,
34(Suppl. 1), S14–S15.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCino, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004).
Supporng autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage
student decision making and ownership. Educaonal Psychologist,
39(2), 97–110.
Stripling, B. (2009). Inquiring minds want to know: Using primary sources
to guide inquiry-based learning. Paper presentaon at the Library of
Congress Teaching with Primary Sources (TPS) Program, Washington,
DC.
Swan, K. O., & Hicks, D. (2007). Through the democrac lens: The role of
purpose in leveraging technology to support historical inquiry in the
social studies classroom. Internaonal Journal of Social Educaon,
21(2), 142–168.
Thornton, S. J. (2005). Teaching social studies that maers: Curriculum for
acve learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thornton, S. J. (2008). Connuity and change in social studies curriculum.
In L. S. Levsk & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social
studies educaon (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006) Integrang dierenated instrucon
& Understanding by Design: Connecng content and kids. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
27
VanSledright, B. (2002). Fih graders invesgang history in the classroom:
Results from a researcher–praconer design experiment. Elementary
School Journal, 103(2), 131–160.
VanSledright, B. (2010). The challenge of rethinking history educaon. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Webster, G. R. (2000). Women, polics, elecons, and cizenship. Journal
of Geography, 99(1), 1–10.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in
a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social
dynamics, and instuonal culture. American Educaonal Research
Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognive
processes used in the evaluaon of documentary and pictorial evidence
.
Journal of Educaonal Psychology, 81(1), 73–87.
Wolf, M. (2010). Innovate to educaon: System [re]design for personalized
learning. A report from the 2010 symposium. Washington, DC: Soware
& Informaon Industry Associaon. Retrieved from hp://www.ccsso.
org/Documents/2010%20Symposium%20on%20Personalized%20
Learning.pdf
Woyshner, C. (2010). Inquiry teaching with primary source documents: An
iterave approach. Social Studies Research and Pracce, 5(3), 36–45.
Woyshner, C., Reidell, A., & Brasof, M. (2013). The cultural eldwork
iniave: Collaboraon for beer educaon. Journal of American
History, 99(4), 1189–1197.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2010). Charng a path from engagement to achievement:
A report on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement.
Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluaon & Educaon Policy.
Zong, G. (2009). Developing preservice teachers’ global understanding
through computer-mediated communicaon technology. Teaching
and Teacher Educaon, 25(5), 617–625.
About the Author
Timothy Paerson, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Instrucon in
the Department of Teaching & Learning in the College of Educaon
at Temple University. He received his B.S. in Secondary Educaon
from Temple University, his M.A. in History from the University of
Pennsylvania, and his M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Social Studies Educaon
from Teachers College, Columbia University. Prior to pursing his doc-
torate he was a middle and high school social studies teacher for six
years. Before joining the faculty at Temple University, Dr. Paerson
was an instructor at Teachers College, Columbia University, and
an assistant professor at Sacred Heart University. His publicaons
include the forthcoming arcle “History in Other Contexts: Pre-
service History Teachers’ Field Placements at Cultural Instuons”
in The History Teacher (with Chrisne Woyshner); “The Transforma-
ve Power of Travel? Four Social Studies Teachers Reect On Their
Internaonal Professional Development” in Theory and Research
in Social Educaon; “You’re Doing What This Summer? Making
the Most of Internaonal Professional Development” in
The Social
Studies
; and “On the Modern Silk Road: A Case Study of the Limits
and Promise of Internaonal In-Service Teacher Professional Devel-
opment” in The State of Global Educaon: Learning with the World
and its People (edited by Brad M. Maguth and Jeremy Hilburn). Dr.
Paerson regularly presents his research at the annual meengs of
the Naonal Council for the Social Studies and the American Educa-
on Research Associaon.
For more informaon about Personalized Learning
please visit
www.centeril.org
Handbook on Personalized Learning
for States, Districts, and Schools
Through the Student’s Eyes: A Perspecve
on Personalized Learning
Handbook on Innovaons in Learning
Advancing Personalized Learning Through
the Iterave Applicaon of Innovaon Science
Personal Competencies in Personalized Learning
and other publicaons and resources
www.centeril.org
