Applying a Mixed-Methods Approach to Studying Social Studies Teacher Development

• In Event: Portraits of Growth: How Novice Social Studies Teachers Develop as Discussion Facilitators

Abstract

Objectives
This opening paper will provide an overview of the broader study, its underlying theoretical framework, and the mixed methods that we applied to study novice social studies teachers’ development as discussion facilitation. We understand classroom discussions, and teachers’ facilitation of them, to be deeply situated and contingent activities. Teacher learning and development represents an increasingly principled response to challenges that emerge in the cultural phenomenon we call “social studies discussion.”

Theoretical Framework
We view teacher learning and development through the lens of the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI; Kaplan & Garner, 2017, see Figure 1). The DSMRI frames individual emotionally-laden action as reflecting the person’s interpretation of who they are while occupying a socio-cultural role. This role identity constitutes a complex dynamic system comprising four interdependent components: (1) ontological and epistemological beliefs about the situation; (2) purpose and goals; (3) self-perceptions and self-definitions; and (4) perceived action possibilities. These continuously emerge within four parameters: culture; social context and interactions; individual dispositions; and the domain of activity. Teacher learning and development reflects shifting content, alignment, and integration within and between the components of a teacher’s role identity.

Methodology
Over 4 years, and approximately 3 times a year, novice social studies teachers (N=37), who graduated from two different teacher education programs in the same city, submitted 15-minute video recordings of their discussions. For each discussion video, participants wrote a reflective memo and participated in a video-stimulated recall interview about their instructional decisions. Our mixed methods analysis used quantitative analyses of scored classroom videos to identify cases for qualitative analysis using DSMRI analytic methods (Kaplan & Garner, 2022).
We scored the videos (N=190) using the Social Studies Discourse Instrument (SSDI), an observation protocol adapted from the Science Discourse Instrument (SDI; Osbourne et al., 2019). The SDI scores fifteen-minute segments of discussion with six dimensions. Three dimensions highlight teachers’ moves: asking open and arguable questions (ASK), prompting students to justify claims with evidence and reasoning (PRESS), and connecting ideas and encouraging student-to-student talk (LINK). These dimensions are complemented by three for student talk: making elaborated evidence-based claims (EXPLAIN), and building upon one another’s ideas or engaging in argumentation (CO-CONSTRUCT and CRITIQUE, respectively). Each dimension is scored between 1 and 4, with scores of 1 and 2 regarded as emergent while 3 and 4 are considered proficient. The SDI was developed for science classrooms but did not assess the scientific substance of classroom discourse.

Domain 3: Indicators of Social Studies Substance
To capture the substance of social studies discussions, we designed a third domain (Figure 1) comprising 4 dimensions: CONTENT, SOURCE SCRUTINY, EMPATHIC IMAGINATION, AND ETHICAL ACTION, drawn from our synthesis of the literature on social studies discussion.

Significance
By leveraging the DSMRI as a theoretical lens to understand between- and within-teacher variation in novice teachers’ discussion facilitation, we were able to develop a rich portrait of teachers’ learning and development as they navigate the particular challenges of social studies discussion facilitation.

Figure 1: DSMRI



Figure 2: The Dimensions of the Social Studies Discourse Instrument

Authors

• Timothy Patterson, Temple University

• Abby Reisman, University of Pennsylvania

• Avi Kaplan, Temple University