No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 May 2014
Singularly lacking in the current discussion of concepts as the appropriate basis for the new social studies curriculum are concepts which are comparative in nature. For example, the Social Studies Curriculum Center at Syracuse University identified eighteen substantive concepts that “appear to be appropriate for elementary and secondary programs in social studies.” Only one concept -- “comparative advantage” -- of these eighteen substantive concepts, however, even faintly implies a comparison. Moreover, comparative advantage is described in terms of bargaining and conflict, not in distinctive social realities. A different group of concepts was identified by the Wisconsin Social Studies Committee. The Committee attempted to identify several basic conceptual ideas that underlie the central elements of history and each of the social sciences in order “to help our young people extract meaning and bring order from the sea of facts which may otherwise inundate them.” But the concepts identified by the Wisconsin Social Studies Committee are vague and do not imply comparison of data or interpretations. The major concept identified for history, for example, is “Change is inevitable.” But what does the concept mean? Does the concept help the student in extracting meaning and bringing order to a sea of facts? More important, does the concept exclude the possibility of constants in history which may be the truth of the matter for some societies? Indeed, the concept, as stated, encourages convergent rather than divergent thinking by the student. Like a Mondrian painting, the reality depicted may be impressive but no one is quite sure what it all means.
1 Price, Roy et al., Major Concepts for the Social Studies (Syracuse, N.Y.: Social Studies Curriculum Center, 1965), p. 2 Google Scholar.
2 “Compromise, adjustment, and resolution of conflicts … became an essential part of facing reality,” notes the Syracuse group, ibid., p. 10.
3 Framework for the Social Studies in Wisconsin Schools (Madison, Wis.: State Department of Public Instruction, 1964), p. 4 Google Scholar.
4 Ibid., inside front cover.
5 Hunkins, Francis, “Organizing Concept-Based Curricula,” Social Education, 80:545 (11 1966).Google Scholar
6 For a current discussion of the concept of a traditional and a modern society, particularly the politics of modernization, see Black, C. E., The Dynamics of Modernization (New York: Harper, 1966)Google Scholar. A differing approach is taken by Daniel Lerner in his Passing of Traditional Society (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1965)Google Scholar. Lerner identifies three phases, modern, transitional, and traditional, in a modular analysis of society. However, Lerner's comments apply to the Middle East only. Further, a bipolar model may be sufficiently challenging to secondary students if the model is viewed as an itinerary for the student to follow rather than a road map. Comment on the validity of the latter distinction is made in Toulmin's, Stephen The Philosophy of Science (London: Hutchinson, 1953), pp. 121–122 Google Scholar.
7 Beyer, Barry K., “Teaching about Africa South of the Sahara in American Secondary Schools,” African Studies Bulletin (04 1968), pp. 18–27 Google Scholar, and “Selected Materials for Teaching about Africa South of the Sahara,” Ibid., pp. 28-32.
8 Beyer, Barry K., “Uncovering Africa,” Social Education (05 1968), pp. 440–444 Google Scholar.