Keywords

Introduction

Before beginning the discussion of the research on student use of technology in social studies, we believe it is important to provide a contextual background of social studies. Social studies developed into a field of study during the early part of the twentieth century. From that time to the present, ongoing discussions have taken place about social studies on “what should be taught to whom, when, and in what order” (Thornton, 2008). Levstik and Tyson (2008) wrote that, “Social studies educators’ long-lasting discussion regarding the scope, sequence, and purpose of social studies means that generalizations about the field can be elusive” (p. xxvi). As a result, providing a single framework that defines and describes social studies can be complicated, if not problematic.

An organization that has tackled this challenge is the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). The NCSS is a US based organization—although its membership includes individuals from 70 countries—that has been in existence for 90 years providing support for social studies educators and advocating for social studies in K12. The NCSS has been at the forefront of providing direction on social studies education. One of its greatest contributions has been the development of a set of national curriculum standards for social studies. The NCSS in 1994 released its first version of curriculum standards structured around ten themes of social studies for K12. In 2010, the organization published a revised version of these standards. Both versions are based on the primary purpose of social studies as described by the NCSS. According to the NCSS, “The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in and interdependent world” (NCSS, 2008, para. 1). At the core of this purpose, “is the promotion of civic competence—the knowledge, intellectual processes, and democratic dispositions required of students to be active and engaged participants in public life” (NCSS, 2010, para. 2).

How can this purpose be carried out? Thornton (2008) discussed two common approaches in Continuity and Change in Social Studies: Social Studies as social science and Social Studies as social education. Within the social science approach, the foundation for the curriculum comes from the content and skills deemed to be currently important by the scholars in the various disciplines that comprise social studies deem to be currently important (Thornton, 2008). These core disciplines of the curriculum traditionally have been history, geography, and government/civics. Over the years, other disciplines such as, anthropology, archaeology, economics, psychology, and sociology have been added to the curriculum. Social studies as social science could be considered a highly discipline-based approach. Social studies as social education takes a more integrated approach to the curriculum by pulling from various disciplines. Social education focuses on “identifying the individual and social demands of associated living and then deciding what material from the social sciences (and collateral material) is relevant to those demands” (Thornton, 2008, p. 5).

No matter what approach is taken, if students are to meet the primary purpose of social studies, they need to have exposure to a diverse domain of knowledge and have the skills to think critically, problem-solve, collaborate, and act conscientiously in addressing complex issues. For teachers, this means using innovative approaches to engage students as thinkers and problem solvers so students develop into successful global citizens and leaders of the twenty-first century. Designing an environment where students have the opportunity to learn and practice these skills while exploring social studies content can be challenging, but not impossible. A key component is the role educational technology can have in facilitating teaching and learning in the social studies. This idea is the focus of the chapter.

The remainder of the chapter is organized into four sections. The first is a synopsis of past literature reviews on technology and social studies. Sections two and three are overviews of research focusing on student use of technology in social studies specifically in the areas of civic education and historical thinking. These areas were selected because they cut across all approaches to social studies, and the content and skills associated with each are instrumental in helping students meet the primary purpose of social studies—civic competence—as outlined by the NCSS. The final section is a summation of the literature reviewed and a look at potential directions future research in technology and social studies could take.

Examining the Research: Time to Focus on Student Use

Over the past two decades, a number of comprehensive literature reviews on social studies and technology have been conducted (e.g., Berson, 1996; Ehman & Glenn, 1991; Swan & Hofer, 2008; Whitworth & Berson, 2003). With each review, a similar conclusion has been drawn: “…while pockets of exemplary activity exist, the anticipated widespread diffusion of technology in K-12 social studies has failed to materialize” (Swan & Hofer, 2008, p. 304). In 1997, Martoella described technology as “the sleeping giant” because of this unrealized potential. Despite the unrealized potential, the most recent reviews of the literature point to strides that are being made to wake “the sleeping giant.”

The majority of the literature in social studies and technology over the past two decades has primarily been on the availability of social studies technology resources and the use of the Internet to access information (Friedman & Heafner, 2006; Whitworth & Berson, 2002). This is especially true of the literature in the 1990s when advocacy of technology was a primary thrust. In recent years, two growing bodies of literature have emerged: teacher-centered uses of technology (e.g., Bennett, 2003; Doppen, 2004; Friedman & Hicks, 2006; Swan & Hicks, 2007; VanFossen & Berson, 2008; Whitworth & Berson, 2003; Zhao & Hoge, 2004) and the preparation of preservice teachers to use technology in social studies (e.g., Brush & Saye, 2009; Crowe, 2004; Diem, 2002; Mason, Berons, Diem, Lee, & Dralle, 2000; Saye & Brush, 1999). A much smaller body of literature that focuses on student-centered uses of technologies in social studies is beginning to grow. Our review focuses on this area. Although we concentrated on research in K12, literature dealing with higher education was included because we believe it can inform K12. We primarily examined research available from 2000 to the spring of 2011.

Educational Technology in Civic Education and Historical Thinking

Civic Education

Because civic competence is the primary goal of social studies (National Council for the Social Studies, 2010), K12 social studies curricula should help students understand that civic education is not a list of mechanical skills for a test, but knowledge for “creating a public” (Postman, 1995, p. 18). Civic learning should include a variety of teaching and discovery methods that enable students to understand the roles and responsibilities of democratic citizens, as well as promote knowledge, skills, and dispositions that enable citizens to participate in and sustain democracy (Mason & Silva, 2001; Patrick & Vontz, 2001). Civic participation can include activities such as voting, engaging in deliberations, community service, and working with others to influence or inform public policy.

Many scholars argue that technological advances and increased access to technology resources are helping citizens in the twenty-first century explore and conceptualize what it means to be a citizen, engage in thoughtful deliberations, consider multiple perspectives related to civic ideals and practices, and actively participate as global citizens (Bers, 2008; Montgomery, 2008; Sunal, Christensen, Shwery, Lovorn, & Sunal, 2010). While a digital divide still exists for some groups, general access to technology has increased and become more efficient around the world in the last 10 years (Montgomery, 2008). Computers come in many shapes and sizes and are no longer confined to desktops. Cell phones are no longer primarily used for talking. A smart phone can provide Internet access, a high-resolution digital camera, and a video camera all in one device. Internet connections have moved from slow dial-up speeds connected through the phone line to wireless, high-speed broadband connections.

Over the last two decades information on the Web has also evolved from a passive, read only resource into a more interactive and collaborative resource that is user-centered. Interactive Web sites, streaming video sites such as YouTube and Discovery Streaming, wikis, blogs, Skype, and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are just a few of the resources that can be used to promote the common good, provide multiple perspectives on issues, raise awareness for social justice, and foster responsible civic participation in the twenty-first century.

This section focuses on the literature related to the impact, as well as the shortcomings, of technology on civic knowledge, skills, dispositions, and action over the last decade. We explore topics related to the civic engagement of the Dot Net generation, the influence of the Internet on civic participation, the use of Web sites, simulations, and video games to engage young people in civic activities, and the creation of online communities to facilitate deliberation.

Civic Engagement and Participation in the USA: A Closer Look at the Dot Net Generation. The citizens of every generation are defined by unique characteristics that are shaped by the world in which they live. Young people who were born between 1977 and 1987 are typically referred to as the Dot Net generation (Keeter, 2006). The citizens of this generation have grown up with the Internet and are deeply connected to interactive technologies, digital media, and instant access to information (Keeter, Zukin, Andoline, & Jenkins, 2002). They are often viewed as a liberal generation when it comes to social issues such as gay marriage, interracial dating, and immigration (Keeter, 2006). Until recently, the majority of this generation was also disengaged from government and traditional political activities such as voting and supporting politicians (Bennett, 2003).

Over the last three decades, overall voter turnout at the polls by the younger generation has been low in comparison to older voters. However, according to a Circle Report published by the Pew Research Center on exit poll data from the last three presidential elections, this trend appears to be changing (Godsay & Kirby, 2010). Between the 2000 and 2004 presidential election there was a 9 % increase in voter turnout among young people (ages 18–29). In the 2008 presidential election, there was an additional 2 % increase, raising the total number of young people (ages 18–29) who voted to 51 %. In addition to turning out at the polls, in 2004 young people were also actively involved in publically supporting candidates (e.g., attending rallies, wearing buttons, displaying signs or bumper stickers) at rates that equaled or surpassed citizens from the Baby Boomer generation (Keeter, 2006). Results from a National Civic Engagement Survey (Keeter et al., 2002) additionally indicated that this generation was more engaged in other aspects of civic life such as volunteering, problem-solving in the community, consumer activism (i.e., boycotting a product to punish a company or buying a product to reward a company), and voicing their opinions on the Internet, in the newspaper, or by signing petitions (Keeter et al., 2002). Based on these results we can conclude that young people from the Dot Net generation are not as apathetic and disconnected from their civic duty as they were once perceived. The next section examines whether or not technology had any influence on this increase in civic participation.

Influence of the Internet on Voting in Presidential Elections. The role of the Internet in election activities and civic engagement has continued to develop and grow over the last 10 years. According to the Keeter et al. (2002), only 18 % of Americans used the Internet for election news in 2000. The main reason cited for Internet use was convenience. The online audience in 2000 showed less of an interest for engaging in civic activities and more of an interest in accessing information. Media sites such as CNN, the Wall Street Journal, C-SPAN, PBS, and MSNBC.com were seen as more useful than campaign sponsored Web sites. Participating in Internet polls was popular, but engaging in conversations with other citizens in political chat rooms was not (Kohut & Rainie, 2000).

In contrast to the 2000 presidential election, the Internet played a pivotal role in the 2004 elections. The Pew Internet and American Life Project published a report—Internet and the Campaign 2004—that indicated these increases were attributed to the growing number of broadband versus dial-up Internet users. During this election, 75 million citizens used the Internet to get news and information related to the election, discuss candidates and political issues via email, volunteer for election events, or make donations to campaigns. Twenty-nine percent of the general public reported that they used the Internet for election news in 2004. This was up from 18 % in 2000. Notably, 27 % of these people said that the information they found on the Internet swayed their actual vote, while 23 % said the information they read actually encouraged them to go out and vote. While convenience was still the main reason cited by most Internet users for getting political information online, more than half of these users reported that they liked going online because they could access more information than from traditional news sources on TV that were often filtered and offered only one perspective (Rainie, Horrigan, & Cornfield, 2005).

The 2008 election report, compiled in the spring before the Presidential election by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, showed that online use for election related activities had already increased when compared to online activity during the spring before the 2004 election. In addition to an overall increase, there were also several new online firsts that came along with 2008 election: (1) three of the presidential candidates actually declared their candidacies online (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards), (2) fundraising records were broken through online donations, (3) citizens were able to actively participate in key debates by asking candidates questions live via YouTube, and (4) candidate supporters were recruited through sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Additionally, more users also read candidates’ speeches and position papers online and watched live debates and announcements than in the 2004 election. Activities such as this indicate that users were accessing primary source documents and interpreting information beyond what the news sources were filtering and posting. In spring 2008 there was also an increase in citizens actually contributing to the political conversation by posting their own commentary on blogs and message boards, forwarding information about candidates to other people via email, volunteering time for campaign activities, watching online videos and announcements, donating money, signing up for political newsletters, and signing petitions (Rainie & Smith, 2008).

In contrast to the positive results associated with the increased use of the Internet to engage citizens in the political process, a survey of 1,553 Internet users showed that 60 % of online users surveyed believe the Internet is full of misinformation and propaganda that gullible voters might believe without considering or investigating alternative viewpoints (Rainie & Smith, 2008). Thirty-five percent of those surveyed believe that the people with the most extreme views and loudest ideas overshadow the average voter’s positions. Internet users age 65 or older were more likely to believe that the Internet is full of extreme views not held by the average citizen (Rainie & Smith, 2008). Based on the literature, it appears that the answer to the question about whether or not the Internet has had a positive influence on civic engagement and participation will depend on whom you ask. What is clear from the research is that access to the Internet has brought about increased civic engagement and participation.

Using Web sites, Simulations, and Video Games to Engage Youth in Civic Duties. In addition to engaging and informing citizens on issues related to the political process, the Internet can also be used to engage youth in a variety of other civic duties. Montgomery (2008) explored the promises and dangers of the Internet as a way to engage youth in civic duties by surveying and analyzing more than 300 Web sites created by and for young people. She discovered that these Web sites included a variety of different goals. Some sites targeted a wide general audience while others were geared toward specific demographics such as underserved youth, youth in urban or rural areas, and groups of youth with different ethnic or racial backgrounds or sexual orientation. Some of the Web sites provided read-only access to information, while others were used to engage young people in the civic and political process. The study concluded that Web sites could be used as a space for youths to express ideas, collaborate, deliberate, build community, enhance their knowledge, and strengthen their own civic identities. Likewise, these sites also provided youth with a platform to get involved and participate in civic activities such as fundraising, volunteering, and connecting with elected officials. The danger of the Internet as a tool was also highlighted in that the Internet could be seen as a tool that could weaken the possibility for active civic participation by our youth. Montgomery (2008) stated that, “the move towards increasingly personalized media and one to one marketing may encourage self-obsession, instant gratification, and impulsive behavior” (p. 42). Potential behaviors such as these draw attention to the importance of key principles to guide democratic communication that include an emphasis on digital citizenship and attention to civility when using the Internet.

In an attempt to reinforce the positive influence of the Internet on civic engagement, Web-based simulations have been developed and used. Bers (2008) conducted a study that described how a well-designed Internet-based simulation could foster online civic engagement. Two different multiyear longitudinal studies involving 39 students from two cohorts of incoming university freshman were conducted using the Active Citizenship through Technology (ACT) educational program. One of the goals of ACT was to promote civic engagement both at the campus and the community level. This program required students to come together for 3 days to use Zora (a technology-based civic education program) to work with other students to create and inhabit a virtual campus of the future, while also discussing relevant civic issues and participating in electoral simulations and deliberations. At the end of the intensive program, the participants made a short digital video about their virtual campus. The results from the surveys, combined with the online activities and conversations derived from Zora, supported students’ active civic engagement by encouraging them to exercise their voice and engage in deliberations related to important issues. Students who participated in the ACT program were more likely to express their political views than the control group who did not participate. Overall, these students’ attitudes about a variety of civic and political issues were positively influenced after participating in the simulation (Bers & Chau, 2010).

While some experts suggest that video games can lead to aggression and social isolation (Bers, 2010), there is a plethora of literature (Bers, 2008, 2010; Bers & Chau, 2010; Gee & Levine, 2009; Kahne, Middaugh, & Evans, 2008; Lenhart et al., 2008; Squire & Jenkins, 2004) available to support game play as a way to develop civic engagement and participation. Bers (2008) presented excerpts of scenarios from children aged 11–16 who also used Zora technology to develop a virtual city. The excerpts revealed that the children learned new concepts and ways of thinking about identity and civic life and participated in an online forum for discussing civic issues related to their virtual cities. Gaming appears to be one more way to encourage meaningful civic participation beyond the classroom.

Online Communities and Deliberation. True deliberation involves people who are willing to consider and challenge multiple viewpoints, be open and fair-minded, and weigh all alternatives before forming a position (Parker, 2005, 2008). Since deliberation is often referred to as the foundation of democratic citizenship it is important to consider how many sites on the Internet support communication among people who already share the same ideas or viewpoints. On the Internet any anonymous user can write a blog, make a post on a message board, or create a wiki without any consequence for how his or her ideas or thoughts might affect other people. As a result, some scholars argue that online spaces do not support or foster true deliberation (Galston, 2000; VanFossen, 2006; White, 1997; Wilhelm, 1998). Galston (2000) concluded that factors such as voluntary memberships in groups based on common interests, the ease at which participants can leave a discussion when the views discussed are not in alignment with their personal beliefs, and the inability to read nonverbal cues and facial expressions while online are all barriers that prohibit meaningful and voluntary deliberations in online groups. Gutierrez (2010) also called into question the lack of civility among everyday citizens in our society today. Because Web sites and online activities are not always monitored, attention to digital citizenship or “netiquette” in the classroom is critical to the development of thoughtful and civil twenty-first century citizens who are prepared to participate in online communities and deliberations.

In contrast to the claims made by scholars who questioned whether or not the Internet can provide a forum for true deliberation, the results from the Sunal et al. (2010) study indicated that online communication supported 125 teachers from five different nations as they attempted to define citizenship in the context of their own culture. The online discussion groups in this study were structured to help participants reflect on their own beliefs about citizenship, as well as consider the different perspectives about citizenship shared by participants from other cultures. The overall consensus from this study is that big ideas related to culture and citizenship in the twenty-first century are evolving and are influenced by factors such as global communication, economics, politics, education, and societal equality. Sunal et al. (2010) concluded that it is important for teachers to consider and challenge their own perspectives related to culture and citizenship in comparison to others because it impacts how they teach, the materials they use, and how they interact with students who may or may not share the same culture. It is also equally important for teachers to provide their students with open forums, both online and face-to-face, which allow them to question stereotypes, identify similarities and differences, and consider alternative ideas and beliefs so ideas related to democracy and civic participation can continue to develop and evolve. If teachers are going to use online communication to support classroom deliberations, then structured ground rules must be established and teachers must establish an online presence to monitor posts and ensure that multiple viewpoints are shared and respected.

Historical Thinking

History can help K12 students understand people and societies. History can also help students understand that the past causes the present, and the future is determined by the present. Sterns (1998) wrote that, “studying history encourages habits of mind that are vital for responsible public behavior, whether as a national or community leader, an informed voter, a petitioner, or a simple observer” (para. 15). In essence, history helps students develop civic competence.

History in K12 is the study of an amalgamation of names, dates, places, events, and ideas. Although having a solid foundation of knowledge built around these elements is essential for students to understand history, genuine historical understanding involves more. According to the National Standards for History Basic Edition (1996) developed by the National Center for History in the Schools at UCLA:

In addition, true historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and to marshal solid evidence in support of their answers; to go beyond the facts presented in their textbooks and examine the historical record for themselves; to consult documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites, works of art, quantitative data, and other evidence from the past, and to do so imaginatively—taking into account the historical context in which these records were created and comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time. (para. 1)

Scholars (Kobrin, 1996; Levstik & Barton, 2001; van Hover & Yeager, 2002; Wineburg, 1991) have promoted activities such as these because they involve students in “doing history”. Students who engage in “doing history” are doing more than gaining historical understanding; they are developing historical thinking skills of chronological thinking, historical comprehension, historical analysis and interpretation, historical research capabilities, and historical issues-analysis and decision-making (NCHS, 1996). The following sections examine literature on student-centered uses of technology that help students develop historical knowledge and historical thinking skills. We explore specific areas of technology use—digital primary sources and simulations and games.

Digital primary sources. Understanding and analyzing past events and conditions is derived from exploring a variety of evidence. From an historical perspective, evidence is referred to as the source. The source can be primary, secondary or tertiary. Although each type of source is important, the primary source is the heart and soul of history. The Library of Congress (2011, April 28) indicates that, “Primary sources are the raw materials of history—original documents and objects which were created at the time under study” (para. 1). These documents and objects provide a direct window into the past allowing students to see, hear, and read the events through the lens of those who made history or were there to experience as history unfolded. “Examining primary sources gives students a powerful sense of history and the complexity of the past” (Library of Congress, para. 2). Berson (2004) discussed that primary sources are valued as instructional tools to assist students in learning historical content and in the development of critical thinking skills.

Swan and Locascio (2008) point out that libraries, universities, and government agencies have developed digital archives of historical documents in response to the growing demand for access to primary and secondary sources. These digital archives provide teachers and students with the ability to freely view and download documents for use in the classroom (Swan & Locascio, 2008). Digital archives have drastically changed who is able to conduct historical research and how the research is done (Bolick, 2006). Granting students access to explore the raw materials of history through digital history sites and other digital media has the potential to actively engage students in the analysis and interpretation of history. “Because learning through historical inquiry with primary sources is a radical shift from how social studies content is typically taught, teaching and learning with digital archives holds the potential of transforming the nature of social studies education” (Bolick, 2006, p. 123).

There are several large-scale digital archive projects that have been discussed in the literature such as the Library of Congress’ American Memory (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html), the National Archives’ Digital Classroom (http://www.archives.gov/education/index.html), the National Endowment for the Humanities’ Edsitement (http://edsitement.neh.gov/), and George Mason University’s History Matters (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/) to name a few. In Fostering Historical Thinking with Digitized Primary Sources, Tally and Goldenberg (2005) discuss four ideas about using primary source documents with students that have become evident as a result of these projects and the literature about them.

First, using primary documents gives students a sense of the reality and complexity of the past; the archives thus represent an opportunity to go beyond the sterile, seamless quality of most textbook presentations to engage with real people and authentic problems. Second, the fragmentary, idiosyncratic, and often contradictory nature of primary documents can help students understand the problematic nature of historical evidence and the need for critical thinking about sources and bias. Third, the multimedia nature of most digital archives—the way they combine textual, audio and image formats—offers students with diverse learning styles multiple pathways into thinking about historical and cultural problems. Finally, the search engines that accompany most digital archives—for example, full-text searches on oral history archives or subject-based searching on photographic archives—enable students to query materials in novel ways that only experts have been able to do before now. (Tally & Goldenberg, 2005, p. 3)

Tally and Goldberg go on to say that digital archives hold a great deal of promise in making it possible for students and teachers to engage in authentic historical thinking processes (p. 3). Despite the promise primary sources hold for helping students develop historical thinking, using them does not naturally bring about this type of thinking. The development of historical thinking occurs as a result of a teacher “who asks critical thinking questions of a document, or who elicits the bias or perspective of the author of the document” in order for students to practice and develop historical inquiry skills (Swan & Locascio, 2008, p. 176). As with use of all technology, the teacher and pedagogy used are the key elements in determining how effective the use of digital primary resources will be for students.

Simulations and games. There is a long tradition of using simulations and games in social studies. Researchers (e.g., Ehman & Glenn, 1991; Frye & Frager, 1996; Gredler, 1996; Grimes & Wiley, 1990; Penn, 1988; Reigeluth & Schwartz, 1989) over the past 50 years have documented the effects these can have on student learning. Students involved in simulations and games can experience increased intrinsic motivation (Malone & Lepper, 1987), improved engagement (Ketelhut, 2007) enhanced attitudes toward subject matter (Ke, 2008), and a sense of personal control over their learning (Ehman & Glenn, 1991). Simulations and games can provide students with the opportunity to work on higher level thinking skills such as problem solving and decision-making (Leemkuil, de Jong, de Hoog, & Christoph, 2003). Simulations can also expose students to big ideas and concepts (Akıllı, 2007). Berson (1996) wrote that, “past studies have noted improved achievement in the areas of factual recall, applied learning, and problem solving” (p. 489). Despite the positive outcomes researchers have indicated as a result of student participation in simulations and games, research exists showing mixed results of classroom simulation use.

Several recent studies (Charsky, 2004; Gehlbach et al., 2008; Jurica, 2010; Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2010; Squire & Jenkins, 2004) have examined the use of computer-based simulations and games in social studies. Charsky (2004) studied the use of Civilization III—a commercially developed historical strategy game—in a ninth-grade advanced placement global history class. Although he observed no statistical difference in student performance on essay tests to measure historical understanding, he found that students were able to understand that historical development was “more than a sequential series of cause and effect events” (p. 134). Squire and Jenkins (2004) also conducted a study on the integration of Civilization III developed into a world history unit in three different contexts (an after school program for middle school students, summer media camp for high school freshman, and a world history class for high school freshman). Squire and Jenkins indicated that students increased their background knowledge of world history, and for some students they developed a “nascent systemic level understanding of world history” (p. 326). Despite this, he indicated that there was no direct evidence that this knowledge translated into consistent historical understanding and thinking.

The results from Jurica’s (2010) study on the use of the simulation Oregon Trail II in two classrooms in a rural elementary school in the southwest USA resulted in similar findings to the studies conducted by Charsky (2004) and Squire and Jenkins (2004). Jurica found that students were motivated to use the simulation; however, the simulation did not affect the students’ abilities to think historically (p. 1932). Jurica indicated that this could have been as a result of the simulation not being an integral part of the instructional unit. She wrote that, “Research which explores the use of simulations as an integral part of an instructional unit may find an effect of conveying information” (p. 1932).

Gehlbach et al. (2008) examined the use of a Web-based, role-laying simulation called GlobalEd in middle school social studies classrooms. “GlobalEd is a five-week web-based simulation in which students negotiate treaties involving current world issues while taking the perspective of the country they are representing” (Gehlbach et al., 2008, p. 898). The research team was interested in examining whether student interested in social studies increased after participating in the GlobalEd simulation. The study used a pre-post design to examine 305 middle school participants in the simulation. Pre- and post-assessments for interest in social studies, interest in issue area, importance of social studies, and social prospective taking. Additionally, a multiple-choice test of the content knowledge the students were covering in social studies during the simulation was given as pre- and post-assessments (p. 901). The researchers found that students participating in the simulation had an increased interested in social studies at the conclusion of the simulation. According to Gehbalch et al., “The most important finding that future studies of GlobalEd or comparable simulations could provide would be that students’ participation in the simulation caused them to be more motivated, more interested, or to achieve more highly” (p. 908).

Conclusions and Future Directions

Literature reviews conducted over the past two decades on social studies and technology (Berson, 1996; Ehman & Glenn, 1991; Swan & Hofer, 2008; Whitworth & Benson, 2003) have highlighted the potential of technology to enhance teaching and learning in social studies. The literature in social studies and technology over this time focused primarily on the availability of social studies technology resources and the use of the Internet to access information (Friedman & Heafner, 2006; Whitworth & Berson, 2002). The literature primarily advocated for technology use in social studies and context-specific uses of various technologies. In recent years, there have been two growing bodies of literature over the past few years. One area has been teacher-centered uses of technology in social studies (e.g., Doppen, 2004; Friedman & Hicks, 2006; VanFossen & Berson, 2008; Whitworth & Berson, 2003; Zhao & Hoge, 2004) where researchers have described and examine how teachers have integrated specific technology into social studies classrooms. The second area has been the preparation of preservice teachers to use technology in social studies (e.g., Bolick, Berson, Friedman, & Porfeli, 2007; Brush & Saye, 2009; Crowe, 2004; Diem, 2002; Mason et al., 2000).

While we recognize the importance of these areas of the literature, our focus was on a smaller body of literature that is beginning to grow. The literature we reviewed focused on student-centered use of technology in social studies specifically in the areas of civic education and historical thinking. We found research demonstrating effective uses of technology to provide students with opportunities to think critically, problem-solve, and collaborate as they deal with complex issues. The literature also included studies describing and analyzing innovative approaches for using technology to engage students as thinkers and problem solvers in an effort to help students gain civic competence inside and outside the classroom. Additionally, the research demonstrated that student historical understanding is developed through a variety of experiences inside and outside the classroom.

When reflecting on the literature as a whole, we see a great many possibilities that exist for potential future directions of the research in technology and social studies. Although it is difficult to predict with great certainty what lines of research will continue or emerge, we believe the research over the past decade does provide clear indications from which predictions can be made. As advances in technologies are made, literature advocating and describing innovative uses will persist. The research will also carry on in teacher education on how to best prepare future teachers to use technology in social studies. We see a line of research emerging in this area that explores the effects on preservice teachers when they are provided with opportunities to observe the use of technology in authentic classroom settings and implement technology in their own teaching in these environments. Studies like these will allow researchers to examine what impact these opportunities have on how (e.g., student-centered, teacher-centered) future teachers integrate technology into social studies. Additionally, researchers will be able to examine if these opportunities affect the dispositions, believes, and attitudes of preservice teachers toward technology and social studies. Longitudinal studies that follow preservice teachers once they are in the their own classrooms would be useful to determine the effects various models of technology in teacher education programs have on teacher use of technology in social studies. Along a similar line, we see researchers continuing to spend time in the classroom examining why some teachers use technology in social studies and others do not. This line of research builds on the literature about barriers to technology integration but moves beyond the barriers of time, access, and training. Examining teacher beliefs and attitudes about the purpose and usefulness of technology and of social studies could provide useful insights for teacher educators and for those responsible for teacher professional development. Finally, with the increase in student access to personal technology (e.g., smart phones, laptops, tablet devices), a line of research on how students use these tools to engage in social studies content and related activities (in and outside the classroom) would be beneficial. Additionally, understanding how students use social networking and Web-based tools could give insights into how these tools could be exploited to engage students in learning social studies content and skills.

No matter what specific lines of research continue or emerge, As Doolittle wrote in 2001—which we believe still rings true a decade later—“It is time within social studies education to take a long look backwards at the beliefs, assumptions, and theory underlying the domain, so that the look forward to practice and pedagogy is clear, informed, and valid. It is time to stop professing technological and pedagogical integration and to start integrating with purpose and forethought” (para. 7). A sustained and focused line of research is needed to demonstrate that technology can be used to move “social studies instruction away from passive, teacher-dominated approaches emphasizing recall and regurgitation toward active, student-centered forms of learning demanding critical and conceptual thinking from all students at all levels” (Crocco, 2001, p. 2).