Keywords

Introduction

Where do we go from here? asked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1967 (Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute 2019). Though his purposes and aims for the Civil Rights Movement in the United States were far greater than those of a handbook chapter, the question resonates with us as social studies educators because of fundamental connections between the civic and transformative goals and objectives of the Civil Rights Movement and the civic and transformative goals and mission of social studies education. Though how and what we teach may differ (Evans 2004), the field as a whole has an ultimate purpose of citizenship education (Barr et al. 1977). Self-study researchers also seek transformation through the study of their teaching practices. They seek to improve their teaching and value social justice (LaBoskey 2004). In both fields, we want to teach beyond learning content by developing the skills and attitudes necessary to foster a well-educated, civically competent, and civil citizenry that teaches for justice for all. Thus we ask: Where do we go from here?

In this chapter the term social studies is used. This term, which is employed throughout the United States, refers to a multitude of disciplines that study humans in their social world (e.g., history, political science, geography, sociology).

The National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) has defined social studies since 1992 as:

the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. Within the school program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences. 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 an interdependent world. (NCSS 2010)

Social studies is a term used by some outside the United States but not all. In Australia the same subjects mentioned by NCSS appear as Humanities and Social Sciences. Although the name is different, the purpose remains similar – to “provide a broad understanding of the world in which we live, and how people can participate as active and informed citizens with high-level skills needed for the 21st century” – still essentially preparing for citizenship (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority 2016). The United Kingdom includes similar focus through the subjects of citizenship, geography, and history (Department of Education 2014). What the United States, Australia, and others share through the teaching of subjects that fall under the name social studies is a focus on citizenship. For the purpose of this chapter, social studies is defined as a field of study in schools which uses disciplines in social science and history in the preparation of citizens to understand the inner workings of the social world around them.

Self-study is a genre of qualitative research that can be considered one form of practitioner inquiry. Self-study began with teacher educators wanting both to transform teacher education and to understand how teacher educators team. Self-study existed as a formalized field for over 20 years, first as self-study of teacher education practices, moving into the study of teaching and teacher educator practices, and recently beginning to include professional practices beyond teaching. Self-study research is theoretically grounded in many areas as explored by LaBoskey (2004). Our understanding of self-study included many of the areas she explores but is captured well by understanding that self-study for us rests strongly on the joining of feminist values with Deweyan pragmatism and democratic goals to disrupt barriers between knower and known and research and researched, develop knowledge and understanding of practice, solve problems, and improve practice all from an insider perspective.

As you approach reading this chapter, there are at least three ways to use this chapter. First, you can read it to explore what self-study research has been done in social studies contexts and develop a broad base of knowledge of what these works tell us. Second, you could use this chapter to introduce yourself to those who have been conducting self-studies as social studies educators. Third, you can read this chapter to consider what areas need more work and find areas where you can explore, connect with, and build upon as a self-study social studies scholar.

The chapter begins with the methodological approach to the review. This will help you understand the processes we engaged in to find, choose, and analyze the literature. We then provide a set of initial findings that help provide insight into the works reviewed in a range of general ways including, for example, publishing patterns, theoretical grounding, and approaches to the studies. We then provide a set of findings related to how the works contribute to understanding, how to transform and improve schooling and society for all, and/or how they promote a robust democratic way of life. These two ways of looking at the literature, both with a wide, general lens and then a specific lens, help give various views on the body as a whole. You can then read a discussion of where our field is and then move on to where we think social studies focused self-study can push boundaries and expand.

Methodological Approach to the Literature Review

Self-study research has been occurring in the broader teacher education community since at least the beginning of the1990s and became formalized in 1994 with the creation of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practice Special Interest Group within the American Educational Research Association (Loughran 2004). After its creation, Zeichner (1999) recognized self-study as a new form of research with great promise for understanding teaching and teacher education. Although some social studies teacher education scholars engaged in self-study for many years (e.g., Dinkelman 2003; Johnston 2006; Johnston et al. 2002), a strong tie between self-study and social studies has taken time to develop. More recently, the use of self-study to focus specifically on social studies teaching and teacher education has begun. In Crowe (2010a), nine different self-studies, foundational information (Crowe and Dinkelman 2010) and conceptual arguments (Powell 2010) for self-study in social studies education are presented. The number of self-studies with a strong tie to social studies education remains limited, and a thorough review may offer additional guidance to those new to this endeavor.

In considering the power of self-study research to provide insight into the nature of teaching and teacher education, Zeichner (2007) called for self-study work to better situate itself within larger research programs and for us to begin to look across self-studies to better understand what can be learned from within a field. In this chapter, we begin to work toward this second portion of Zeichner’s call, searching for a sense of what knowledge is embedded across social studies specific self-study work.

We consider our review systematic in the manner that the Review of Educational Research’s explained as acceptable forms of review: “integrative reviews, theoretical reviews, methodological reviews, and historical reviews” (as cited by Kennedy 2007, p. 139). Kennedy describes a type of systematic method that does not necessarily ask the type of question that a meta-analysis may but where the review includes clear criteria, provides boundaries to the literature, and is helpful for readers to gain a deeper insight into what work has been conducted, especially for those beginning to read within a field. Key here is a thorough, transparent methodology for the review of the literature.

We entered this endeavor with two research questions in mind:

  • What does the body of self-study research in social studies education tell us about what we have studied as self-study social studies scholars of teaching and teacher education?

  • What are the strengths and limitations of the work so far?

Search Process

We used six approaches to search for research that used self-study as the methodology within the social studies education context.

  • Database search: Exploring five databases, Academic Search Complete, Academic Search Premier, Education Full Text, Education Research Complete, and ERIC, with combinations of social studies, self-study, and teacher education.

  • Social studies education journals: Searching four major journals in social studies education that publish research – Theory and Research in Social Education, The Social Studies, Social Studies Research and Practice, and The Journal of Social Studies Research looking for any published items that refer to the term “self-study” (n = 41). If one of these articles was not self-study research itself but identified a piece of self-study work in their writing, we also gathered that source to review (n = 7).

  • Studying Teacher Education (STE): Examining the flagship self-study journal for articles that referenced social studies, social sciences, history, economics, government, civics, citizenship, geography, psychology, or sociology (n = 39).

  • Castle Conference Proceedings: Reviewing all proceedings from the International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices for the term social studies (n = 43).

  • Social studies education research handbooks: Reading the chapters of the two most recent social studies education research handbooks (Levstik and Tyson 2008; Manfra and Bolick 2017) that included reviews of social studies practitioner-based research for references to works they deemed self-study.

  • Database search: An additional search of all databases our university subscribes to, which added databases such as Humanities International Complete, JSTOR Journals, and PsycINFO as well as the catalog of books for OhioLINK. We searched using the terms social studies, history, civics, political science, social science, social education, economics, geography, psychology, and sociology, with self-study to try to locate pieces that referred to subject matter considered a part of social studies but that may have been overlooked. If a new piece was identified, the journal it was in was then searched for the combination of social studies and self-study (n = 6). Several chapters that were social studies and self-study also appeared (n = 14).

Once compiled we revisited all areas before finalizing this chapter to make sure we included the most up-to-date references. This expansive search brought in far more scholarship than merely self-study research in a social studies context. Inclusion and exclusion criteria helped us select the studies to be reviewed.

Selection Process

From the articles, chapters, conference proceedings, and books gathered, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to finalize the pool of research. To be included all four inclusion criteria must have been met and no exclusion criteria met.

Inclusion Criteria

  • The item must be research.

  • The item must be self-study research, as defined in some manner by the author. For example, the research was published in a self-study journal, book, or conference proceedings, the author used self-study literature to frame the research methods, and/or the author called the study, methodology, or methods self-study.

  • The item must be social studies as defined in some manner by the author. For example, the work was published in a social studies education journal or book, the author used social studies literature to contextualize the piece, or the study was conducted within a social studies educational setting (i.e., a teacher educator teaching future social studies teachers, a history/social science professor teaching history/social sciences students, teachers’ self-studies of their teaching in a social studies context).

  • The item was written in English. Although this limits the chapter because it only focuses on works published in one language, as authors we could only feel confident reading and analyzing such works. As well, most works found were in English language sources. We want to acknowledge that there are social studies scholars beginning to publish self-study work in other languages though (Japanese for example, see Kim and Hirotane 2018).

Exclusion Criteria

  • Theoretical or conceptual works were excluded from the literature review (e.g., Dinkelman 2000 & 2003).

  • Works that identify self-study as part of accreditation were excluded.

  • Works that define self-study as students or teachers learning on their own were excluded.

Analysis

With detailed criteria and a wide range of places to search, it would seem easy to find self-study work with a social studies focus. However that was not the case. To begin, 170 items that included self-study and social studies in some form that appeared to be research written in English were gathered. Works that we already knew were literature reviews that referred to social studies and self-study were not included in this initial group. We then applied the criteria. Upon examination of each item, we found some that appeared as research in the search (such as Dinkelman 2003) were actually not or appeared to have a social studies context but when examined closely, did not (such as Young and Erickson 2010). Other works included the term “self-study” in the literature review by referring to another piece of research (e.g., Journell 2008 for an example) or as part of an implication in the conclusion (e.g., Castro 2013). These were quickly eliminated since the study that the publication was based on was not described as a self-study by the author(s). After all inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 60 research articles, book chapters, and chapters in proceedings were included for further review. Our review ended with items in 2018.

We chose two approaches to analyze the literature. First we read and applied an open interpretive frame looking for patterns and themes that emerged by looking at the research as a whole. The benefit of coming at the literature without any a priori assumptions or categories was that we were likely to see connections and relationships we might miss if we were looking through a particular lens. As we began to see patterns and themes, we took those and looked across all the works with some specific areas in mind such as was the work completed alone or collaboratively, how was the work framed, what literature was the study connected to, what was the purpose of the study, what type of self-study was it, and what was the key focus or focal areas for the study. This produced the section titled initial findings below.

Since this is particularly a review of social studies work, we chose to apply two lenses after the initial analysis: one transformative and the other democratic. These lenses helped to specifically look for ways that self-study research might or might not be enabling, describing, or revealing transformative or democratic social studies practices. We think that self-study can play an important role in being transformative for social studies education but also for making it more democratic. These are also key areas that we think social studies as a subject can offer both theoretical and active civic support within the educational community and in society more broadly. Therefore, we wanted to determine if and in what ways these might be underlying currents in the studies that exist thus far.

Initial Findings

An initial read of the literature proved interesting. We organized the patterns and themes that emerged into six findings that reveal several opportunities for growth within the field. We found that the literature (1) reflected a strong presence of scholars and publishing outlets located in the United States; (2) included few studies that provide a rich and robust connection of the study to both social studies education and self-study; (3) showed that these self-studies provide insight into the complex and nuanced innerworkings of the social studies education endeavor; (4) included a trend toward interdisciplinarity; (5) highlighted a value for variety of ways that individuals engaged in self-study; and (6) represented four types of collaboration signaling a value for collaboration in the field. Many studies could be categorized under more than one of these findings, but for readability and accessibility, we chose to succinctly explain each area and provide illustrative examples rather than include every citation that could relate to every finding.

A US-Centric Field

It is interesting to understand both where and when work that is self-study research with some social studies context has been published. Castle proceedings show the earliest works in 2000 and contain the most with 16. In informal conversations over the years, many of those who are both self-study and social studies scholars have expressed a sense that self-study is not published in social studies journals and a superficial look seems to counter that with 13 items in social studies journals. However, upon a deeper examination, the leading social studies research journal, Theory and Research in Social Education, has only published three works by authors who identify the research as self-study (Kirkwood-Tucker 2004; Ritter 2010a; Sevier 2005). Considering self-study has a history of more than 20 years, and this journal publishes four issues a year with roughly four research articles per issue; the feeling that self-study is not published in social studies seems justifiable. Social Studies Research and Practice and The Social Studies have each published five pieces between 2005 and 2018. Social studies researchers have found equal success in journals outside of self-study and social studies (n = 9) and with Studying Teacher Education (n = 9). Ten book chapters were published, nine of those in an edited collection of self-study work (Crowe 2010a). From 2000 to 2018, each year between one and five items have been published except one. In 2010 the most items were published yet at 16, including an edited volume with 9 research-based self-studies (see Crowe 2010a).

The United States is strongly represented in both the location of the publications and the location of the authors. Almost all of the book chapters and journal articles were published by authors or in publications primarily associated with the United States. Nine journal articles were published in Studying Teacher Education, which has had editors from Australia and Canada and whose reviewers are international. The chapters in the proceedings for the Castle Conference (n = 16) can be considered international since the conference is in England and draws authors from many countries typically across five continents. The social studies authors, however, overwhelmingly represent US contexts. Two of the book chapters were authored by individuals outside of the United States (Australia (Tudball 2010) and Canada (Farr Darling 2010)), and one chapter in the 2006 Castle proceedings by Berry and Crowe had one individual author from Australia and one from the United States. However, the US context in Berry and Crowe (2006) was the social studies context.

There were 79 distinct authors included in the 60 pieces reviewed. Of the 60 pieces, 32 were authored collaboratively (2 or more people), and 28 were authored alone. Seventeen of the 32 collaborations involved groups of 3 or more. Of the 32 pieces authored by groups, there were 27 combinations of authors. Although single-authored, evidence in at least three of those studies show that the study occurred while the author was part of a collaborative self-study research group (Hostetler 2010, 2012; Johnston 2000). These findings reflect the value of collaboration within self-study that was reported in the first handbook through LaBoskey’s chapter (2004) and was evidenced throughout the Handbook by the numerous places that collaboration appears.

A Dearth of Studies with a Strong Theoretical Grounding in Both Social Studies and Self-Study Literature

In looking across our work as a field, it is clear that social studies teacher educators are not consistently grounding our social studies self-studies in both social studies literature and self-study literature. Many studies have a strong grounding in one field or the other. At times, self-study literature or social studies literature is not cited. It is important to explain that the authors discussed in this section did not set out to explicitly influence the fields of social studies education or self-study. Rather, we are reporting a trend in what we saw when looking across a body of literature, most of which we had read at some point and considered social studies focused self-study. Many of the studies were coded as having minimal to no social studies theoretical grounding. At times authors did not ground their work in the methodological literature of self-study or related self-study literature. It is important to note that though studies may not be grounded in one or both areas, this does not mean that the works are atheoretical or lacking a strong tie to literature. For example, Cuenca (2010) grounds his study quite strongly in teacher education literature. It is contextualized and situated very well within teacher education, just not social studies education. This is a thoughtful piece of self-study scholarship by a social studies educator that adds to our understanding of how a new university supervisor who is just from his life as a teacher in secondary schools experiences supervision of preservice teachers. However, without the theoretical grounding in social studies or deliberate connection to the field of social studies, the findings do not add to what it means to be a social studies university supervisor as they could.

Within the literature, we found studies where one of the authors was in a social studies context (one of the inclusion criteria), but the study is not about the social studies portion of that context (e.g., Berry and Crowe 2006; Coia and Taylor 2004; Cuenca 2010; Dinkelman et al. 2006a, b). For example, Coia and Taylor study their enactment of authority in their teaching, and Dinkelman and colleagues explore the transition from teacher to teacher educator. Others are in a social studies context that is more a focus of the study, but the authors do not to situate the study in or relate the findings to social studies literature. Crowe et al. (2010) clearly demonstrate they are engaging in self-study within their social studies program and about their practice as social studies educators, but the study is situated in a broader teacher education and self-study methodology context. Studies like this can add a great deal to social studies education conversations, and as we move forward in future studies, a clear and stronger connection to social studies education is important.

At times, a study is reported as a self-study by the author who clearly is including their teaching as a part of the study, but no self-study literature appears in the methods and methodology sections. This can be seen in Kirkwood-Tucker’s (2004) exploration of the use of simulation in teaching. The author had three research goals, and one was specifically about exploring her “own global teaching practices in exposing students to pressing global issues voiced before the United Nations General Assembly” (p. 58). Though the methods chosen are grounded in well-accepted qualitative literature without the connections to self-study methodological literature, social studies scholars are not learning about the methodology of self-study.

Teaching Social Studies Teachers Is a Complex Endeavor Across Multiple Spaces

Loughran (2005) posited that self-study was “a meaningful way for uncovering important facets of the knowledge of practice.” A way by which “teacher educators might then begin to capture, unpack and portray the complexities of teaching and learning about teaching in ways that might lead to deeper understandings of practice” (p. 13). Social studies scholar Adler (2008) explained that self-study research enables us to bring forth the implicit theories of social studies teacher educators and subject those beliefs to close scrutiny, careful analysis, and reflection (pp. 332–333). Essentially, self-study research provides insights into the complexity of our endeavor as social studies teacher educators. Social studies educators who engage in self-study demonstrate that social studies teacher education is not something that merely occurs in the social studies methods course. Studies thus far tend to show the complexity of teacher education in one of four spaces of social studies education: supporting and supervising preservice social studies teachers while in fieldwork, teaching and learning in social studies methods courses and social studies education programs, and learning in social studies teacher education graduate programs.

There are a number of social studies self-studies that occur within the context of supporting and supervising preservice social studies teachers (e.g., Cude et al. 2016; Cuenca 2010; Cuenca et al. 2011; Hartwick and Johnson 2008; Ritter et al. 2007; Trout 2008, 2010, 2012). Trout’s (2010) self-study research deeply explores the individual relationship between a preservice social studies teacher and a supervisor through the frame of care theory (Noddings 2003). Trout (2012) continues this research by exploring the author’s capacity to “think about the relationships I have with teacher candidates and how our interactions may affect their development as beginning professionals” (p. 125). While the author did not characterize herself as a “teacher in the usual sense of the word,” she did identify as an “educator” in her supervisory role. Similarly, Cuenca et al.’ (2011) self-study research focuses on university supervisor/teacher educator and student teacher interactions and suggests creating a “third space” to provide more depth for university supervisors/teacher educators to engage in relevant conversation and thinking in teacher education. These expansions of our notion of what constitutes social studies teacher education, via self-study, reveal the complexity of our work.

Many studies focus on the social studies methods course context in some manner (e.g., Christou and Bullock 2014; DeWitt and Freie 2005; Dinkelman 2010; Dinkelman et al. 2012; Journell and Webb 2013; Lang 2010; Meuwissen 2005; Ritter 2010b). Much of this research focuses on the pedagogy enacted in these spaces by teacher educators and/or students. Logan and Butler’s (2013) collaborative self-study explores their practice and pedagogical choices in the context of a methods course. Preston-Grimes’s (2010) self-study focused on her teaching practice in an elementary social studies methods course and found that “through a study of ‘self in teaching,’ I have changed how I teach in light of increasing demands” (p. 189, emphasis in original). DeWitt and Freie’s (2005) study occurred in the context of a social studies methods class, and they aimed to improve their practice in future versions of the course. Lang’s (2010) self-study sought to improve the “skills for bringing issues of diversity and democracy to the forefront in the context of the social studies curriculum methods course” (p. 71). As the author explained, “I wanted to explore how I could better teach preservice teachers that understanding points of view and perspective taking are crucial in the diverse social studies classroom” (p. 75). Tschida and Sevier (2013) used dialogic conversations to explore their experiences, issues, and challenges they faced with an elementary social studies methods course they taught for the first time in an online format. Tudball (2010) focused on internationalizing the curriculum in her social studies education course in Australia.

Some self-studies focused on aspects of the social studies program as a whole rather than a practice in an individual course. Crowe et al. (2010) explored how three professors sought to analyze, question, and improve their social studies teacher education program. They reported the experience of the growth and implementation of their overall vision for the program. Cronenberg et al. (2016) used self-study to examine their teaching and experience across the program as they began to use a standardized, high-stakes performance assessment. They used narrative methods to explore their experiences with this performance assessment to understand impacts on their teaching and the program. They found that despite their efforts, their teaching shifted from a focus on learning about teaching to learning the rubrics of the standardized assessment. They also went from being optimistic about the potential of this performance assessment to being quite skeptical as to whether it consistently and accurately assesses their students’ ability to teach rather than their ability to write and follow directions.

Authors also unpacked the complexity of teacher education while engaged in graduate education. Within this is a substantial thread of research that uses self-study to explore the process of becoming a social studies teacher educator (Hostetler 2010, 2012; Levicky 2014; McAnulty and Cuenca 2014; Ritter 2006, 2007, 2009). Some of the earliest works in this area were by Ritter (2006, 2007, 2009). Ritter (2006) found three areas of difficulty in the transition from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Ritter’s (2007) study explored how graduate coursework contributes to the development of identity, practice, and understanding of being a reflective teacher educator. Following this study, Ritter (2009) employed self-study to analyze the development of a teacher educator’s vision and showed an example of graduate school experience as an influence on teacher beliefs, pedagogy, and practice. Levicky (2014) contributes to this body of research by sharing a focus on the evolution of his beliefs and identity as a social studies teacher becoming a social studies teacher educator while influenced by the ideas of counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. Hostetler’s (2010) self-study of the graduate school experience adds to this area. Unlike other work on becoming a social studies teacher educator, Hostetler’s study highlights the use of self-study as a teacher in a secondary school. This work provides insight into the use of self-study as a means to analyze and situate a teacher’s beliefs, theory, and practice in an ongoing and evolving manner throughout graduate school. Through the studies we begin to see nuances and complexities among beliefs and values as a social studies educator and one’s practices and learning.

Interdisciplinarity

The studies reviewed show scholars engaging in interdisciplinary ways with teacher educators from science and math. Collaborations with a science teacher educator were common (see Berry and Crowe 2006; Christou and Bullock 2014; Kirkwood-Tucker and Bleicher 2003; Johnston 2000; Johnston et al. 2002; Johnston-Parsons et al. 2007; Journell and Webb 2013; Lang and Siry 2008). Johnston (2000) studied with a science teacher educator and shared what they learned about meeting the needs of preservice teachers of color when teaching about social justice and equity. Kirkwood-Tucker and Bleicher (2003) share a self-study centered on traditional social studies content, global issues, through their team teaching of an elementary social studies and science methods course. Journell and Webb (2013), a social studies and a science teacher educator, studied their experiences teaching subject matter methods courses that included students pursuing licensure through a 4-year program and alternatively licensed students together. Lang and Siry’s (2008) self-study explored how their teaching in social studies and science methods courses fostered “strategies, orientations, and structures that help us to more effectively engage preservice teachers in using inquiry-oriented pedagogy and understanding diversity” (p. 213). Araujo, Uribe Florez, and Goenaga Ruiz de Zuazu (2017) brought math and social studies together. They created a math and social studies day at a local elementary school where their students could teach an integrated math and social studies lesson. They studied this process, which included the preparation of their preservice teachers. Their reporting exposes the opportunities and drawbacks to the process. Partnering with colleagues from other disciplines and engaging with content not traditionally considered part of the social studies reflect the already interdisciplinary nature of social studies education and the propensity of social studies educators to cross-disciplinary borders.

Varied Approaches to Self-Study

How self-study research was enacted had similarities, like the use of qualitative methods of data collection and generation. However, the variations provide greater insight into the many ways that social studies teacher educators engaged with self-study. We present individual and collaborative approaches along with the variations within those.

Individual approaches: Studies varied from a deep focus on internal aspects of the self as a social studies educator to an exploration of the self within one’s practice to an examination of actions and practices. It is most helpful to consider this as a continuum. Farr Darling (2010) engages in a personal history self-study that explores her experience and that of her grandmother within the larger historical context. Through the story of their experiences, she allows readers to see how her experiences connect and relate to her practices as a social studies educator.

Other authors focused on the changes of their beliefs and knowledge as they are in graduate school. Hostetler (2010) reported on outcomes of a self-study into one’s teaching beliefs and practices and how engaging in self-study led to empowerment as a classroom teacher of social studies (Hostetler 2012). Ritter (2010a) investigated the transition from K-12 classroom teacher to teacher educator; analyzed the assumptions of the “skills, expertise, and knowledge” needed to be a teacher educator; and explored the process of becoming a teacher educator.

Some look at the experience of teaching and learning as a teacher educator. Kessler (2006) studied the experience of returning to the high school classroom to obtain National Board Certification in Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Social Studies-History. The author highlights the interplay between this process and improving the teaching and learning in the social studies methods course. Hawley’s 2010 study explored the connection between planning and teaching social studies education courses, both undergraduate and graduate teachers, and the author’s continued refinement of his rationale for teaching social studies. Ritter (2012) examined his use of modeling in his elementary level social studies methods course. He shared in the article how four types of modeling appeared in his teaching.

Collaborative approaches: Thirty-one of the reviewed studies were collaboratively created, and over half of those were groups of three or more. Collaboration took on at least four forms across the literature: (1) scholars who specifically situated their own work as a critical friendship; (2) scholars who worked together on a project or study with one research goal or the same research question(s); (3) those who engaged as a collaborative, supporting one another but conducting their own self-study with separate foci; and (4) those who used self-study to study a collaborative process.

A critical friendship is a common form of collaboration in self-study, for example, Berry and Crowe (2006). Logan and Butler’s (2013) study is an example of critical friendship within collaborative self-study. The authors undertook a self-study as critical friends as they taught elementary social studies methods courses for the first time. Similar to Logan and Butler, Christou engaged in a critical friendship when teaching a new course. In Christou and Bullock’s study (2014), Bullock acted as Christou’s critical friend but did not teach the same course like Logan and Butler did. Both studies provide insights into the process of learning to teach a new course and into the experience of a critical friend partnership.

A second type of collaborative self-study occurred when authors were working toward one research goal or the same research question(s). Dinkelman et al. (2006) undertook a collaborative inquiry around the research question: “What does collaborative inquiry into shared instruction of a social studies student teaching seminar reveal about how beginning and experienced teacher educators make pedagogical choices and draw on standards to support them?” (p. 280). They described a give-and-take in their practice between their “commitment to a critical democratic conception of social studies teacher education” and the resistance of the preservice teachers they taught (p. 280). Hawley et al. (2012) explored their individual teaching rationales as a group. Their self-study collective helped them delve into their teaching practice “to explore the influence of their unarticulated beliefs about teaching and learning” (Hawley et al. 2012, p. 155).

A third type of collaboration also appeared, self-study collaboratives where the participants supported one another but were engaged in studies of their own practices (e.g., Hawley et al. 2010a, b, 2012; Hostetler et al. 2012, 2013; Ritter et al. 2007, 2008). Examples of this type of collaboration include the findings of a self-study among teacher educators and preservice teachers that explored how taking an inquiry stance through self-study contributed to learning about teaching practices (Hostetler et al. 2012, 2013); the work of a self-study collective to support graduate students in their individual social studies self-studies (Hawley et al. 2010a); and the collaborative self-study of three beginning teacher educators who “…found that collaborative self-study provided a useful framework for considering their pedagogical reasoning and decision making as they encouraged student teachers to engage in rationale-based practice” (Ritter et al. 2007, p. 341). Hostetler et al. (2012) exemplify this conception through their focus on “self-study and inquiry work” (p. 165) in a collaborative as a means to create space for supporting preservice teachers. This study found the self-study collaborative to be a supportive, reflective group that helped nurture the developing beliefs and attitudes of preservice teachers. Those who participated in these studies were part of the same teacher education program. Collaborative self-study seemed to have become part of the teacher education program, though not in formalized or required ways.

A fourth type of collaboration included the use of self-study to examine a collaborative process. Cude et al. (2016), Hawley et al. (2010b), and Dinkelman et al. (2012) exemplify this. Cude and colleagues engaged in a collaboration to better understand their teaching and better prepare the students they taught. One of the purposes of their study was to learn “what contributed to a successful collaborative, interdisciplinary partnership” (p. 23). From this they found that the success of a collaborative depended on “ongoing communication, shared vision, and goodwill” (p. 23). Hawley et al. (2010b) described a self-study collaborative as a means to collectively and individually explore the depths of social studies education, practice, teaching, and learning. In their work, the graduate students shared both how they experienced the collaborative and what they gained. Dinkelman et al. (2012), former doctoral students, sought to understand the influence a collaborative seminar from their graduate education had on the doctoral students’ development as scholars and teacher educators. The group found ways that experiences with a collaborative process in graduate school stayed with them especially the value of collaboration as a scholar and as a teacher educator.

Social Studies Focused Self-Study for Transformation and Democratic Living

As social studies educators, we chose two lenses to view body of self-study by social studies educators. These lenses reflect two interrelated themes that appear often in social studies education: teaching for transformation (Dewey 1916) and teaching for democracy (see Dewey 1916; Barr et al. 1977; Parker 2003; Westheimer and Kahne 2004). We chose to look at the social studies self-studies through a transformative lens because we believe that social studies can and should play an important role in transforming schooling and society to be more just and equitable for all. In social studies, themes that relate to the notion of transforming society such as social justice, improving students’ lives, and improving society have permeated social studies conversations since its early days (Evans 2004). Improvement and equity are also important values appearing in self-study literature (LaBoskey 2004). We chose to look at the literature through a democratic lens because of the influence of Dewey (1916) and teaching toward democracy as a way of life on social studies education, notably seen in Parker (2003). As well, social studies is often viewed as an important subject to learn to be a member of a democratic society, as stated in the NCSS (2010) purpose for social studies education. The notions of transformation and democratic are interrelated. Shulte (2004) posited a connection between transforming as a teacher educator and creating a democratic classroom where one engages in “more socially just teaching” (p. 712). We found that many studies could be described in both ways; we present select ones to highlight each theme.

Transforming and Improving Schooling and Society for All

As we reviewed and analyzed the self-study research in social studies education, we found the notion of teaching for transformation. We found authors who explored teacher education with intentions of transformation and other who found ways that self-study facilitates transformation. These can inform and instruct efforts to improve social studies teacher education programs.

Some authors explicitly wrote about transformative intentions. Hartwick and Johnson (2008) collaborated to understand how one of them experienced being a supervisor of preservice teachers while attempting to enact principles of transformational multiculturalism. Araujo, Uribe Florez, and Goenaga Ruiz de Zuazu (2017) held a commitment to transformative multicultural social studies. Their study focused on their preservice teachers’ teaching as they prepared and taught an integrated social studies and mathematics lesson in the context of transformative multicultural social studies.

Sevier (2005) studied his own practice as he recommitted to his theoretical influences of culturally relevant and transformative pedagogy. He found four ways that he enacted these two commitments in his teaching as he intentionally focused his actions. Sevier argues that the revised practices led not only to the enactment of transformative pedagogy but also to the transformation of preservice teachers’ understandings of equity in US schooling. Sevier’s work highlights a teacher educator trying to make change for society by changing teaching.

A fundamental purpose of self-study is improvement of practice (LaBoskey 2004), which itself can be seen as transformation. Some authors’ work allowed readers access to the process of transformation. Self-study afforded Hostetler et al. (2012) the opportunity to transform as a social studies teacher. The author began to express democratic values and engage in practices as a social studies teacher to model these – for example, listening across differences. As well, the process created a sense of empowerment as a social studies teacher that had not been experienced before.

Lang and Siry (2008) also reported changes to their teaching practices while they studied their practices. They share that they changed as educators while trying to teach preservice teachers to be teachers in diverse classrooms. They also found that their preservice teachers changed. The preservice teacher began to understand the need to explore “multiples interpretations of evidence,” which, Lang and Siry argue, leads to transformation for all those engaged in the teaching and learning relationship (p. 216).

Johnston’s (2000) research was grounded in a social studies methods course for graduate students in an elementary-level teacher education program. This collaborative self-study of two teacher educators’ practice, as related to issues of equity and diversity with students of color, suggested that spending time and actively listening to their students from different cultural groups were valuable for the author’s growth as a teacher educator. These experiences helped the author develop deeper understandings of the preservice teachers’ experiences and made the author more cautious and critical when determining if their social justice teaching was effective.

Teaching for Democracy! Promoting a Robust Democratic Way of Life

Curricular choices in social studies can support democratic education. As well, how we teach social studies can provide opportunities for students to engage in activities that help them build skills and attitudes needed to engage in a democracy. In reviewing the literature, we were pleased that the theme of teaching for democracy emerged before we began the focused analysis. Teaching for democracy showed up clearly in how authors framed their work and their studies highlight curricular and pedagogical choices that support teaching for democratic life.

Several teacher educators focused their studies on teaching for social justice and diversity, while others examined their efforts to engage in culturally relevant pedagogy. Some authors explored how they enacted specific methods to promote democratic ideals. Still other scholars sought to understand how their practices aligned with their values for democratic education. An (2016) studied the experience of teaching elementary social studies preservice teachers from a social justice framework while also preparing them for and guiding them through completing a standardized, high-stakes national performance assessment. The author studied a practice that many teacher educators were using but through a social studies lens. The author’s findings and discussion show a social studies educator modelling teaching within a social justice framework.

Johnston led several studies with a clear social justice focus. Johnston et al. (2002) continued the work from Johnston (2000). They studied the experience of the teacher educators’ practice of actively engaging their students from different cultural groups as cultural informants. This group included one of the preservice teachers who had informed the Johnston (2000) study, who was a teacher by that point. They shared what they each learned and then reframed and critically analyzed their research findings by using five theoretical lenses. Johnston-Parsons et al. (2007) continued this process and amplified the voices of students of color within their teacher education program. They continued to develop their own understandings of social justice and diversity.

Lang (2010) wanted to teach preservice elementary social studies teachers that “social studies is to produce a democratic citizenry that understands the social justice issues fundamental to democratic institutions within the United States” (p. 76). Lang studied the use of Praxis Inquiry and the Praxis Inquiry Protocol to support preservice elementary teachers in their learning to be teachers of future citizens in a diverse society. Lang and Siry (2008) sought to understand how they engage their preservice teachers with issues and topics of diversity in society in the science and social studies methods courses. They sought to improve their preservice teachers’ ability to understand and engage with diverse cultural backgrounds to become better teachers of children.

Others studied their practices as culturally relevant teacher educators. Sevier (2005) documented and explored the experience of trying to be a culturally relevant teacher educator. Martell’s (2015) work is an extended self-study of a social studies teacher’s practice and role of culturally relevant instruction over years of teaching high school in different settings then while transitioning to teacher education.

Some authors focused their attention on teaching for democracy through teaching methods. Reidel and Salinas (2011) examined “the ways in which the validity of honoring and exploring emotions within the context of classroom-based discussions was articulated and enacted by the first author and students responses to this focus.” Pereira (2000) provides insight into pivotal moments across her life and their connection to current positions on discussion and the teaching of controversial issues. Kirkwood-Tucker (2004) explored United Nations (UN) simulations as a method to teach global issues and citizenship in a graduate social studies teacher education course attended by both in-service and preservice.

Other authors framed their work around tensions in their teaching. Erickson and Young (2008) sought to align their teaching practices with Goodlad et al.’s (2004) vision for education in a democracy. Erickson and Young studied their and their students’ experiences as they worked to resolve the tensions between their teaching practices and these commitments. Lowenstein (2010) explored the multifaceted tensions in teaching for citizenship education in a social studies methods course. The study documents the journey the author experienced that helped him create a safe place in the social studies methods course where rich, authentic deliberation and discussion of different perspectives could occur. The author began to question whether his practices of discussion and debate and focus on social justice actually created an unsafe space for some students. Lowenstein described the move to making academic service-learning the focus of the methods course and the outcome.

Ritter et al. (2011) wondered if their practices as university supervisors aligned with their democratic beliefs. To do this, the authors used characteristics of an independent self, a dominant cultural norm that the authors state, “can detract from more inclusive, and potentially more powerful, forms of democratic teaching and learning” (p. 33) to examine their written feedback. They found ways that their feedback did seem to reinforce this ideal and in turn would limit the understandings their preservice teachers’ would need that would lead them toward “Parker’s (2003) advanced conception of democratic citizenship education” (p. 35).

Discussion

What Does Social Studies Focused Self-Study Bring to the Broader Social Studies and Self-Study Communities

Many social studies education scholars have taken up the question of the purpose of social studies teaching and learning (e.g., see Counts 1932; Parker 2003; Ross 2014). The answer to what we are teaching social studies for is generally democratic education and preparing citizens. Though the field may agree on a citizenship purpose, social studies teachers and teacher educators still must decide what type of citizen they are trying to prepare through their practice. The type of citizen can vary. Westheimer and Kahne (2004), for example, provide three types of citizen. Each type of citizen has implications for choices of content and teaching methods. Self-study can help us, as social studies educators, understand our decisions and better align our intents with our actions.

The turn toward self is an important aspect of self-study. By turning toward the self in social studies focused self-study, researchers have an opportunity to occupy the multiple roles of teacher, citizen, researcher, and activist. Through these roles we can consider complex critical conceptions of contrasting micro perspectives (self/citizen/practice) and macro environments (society/civics/democratic action) in our research both theoretically and within a number of educational (K-12 practitioner classroom and teacher educator courses) and community (varied spaces for learners and citizens) contexts.

Social studies focused research simultaneously allows us to turn inward and turn outward, changing the outside (larger society) by changing from the inside (teaching practices). As self-study seeks to turn inward via the self, the social studies supports us turning outward in our practice via democratic and citizenship education. A social studies focus can help a self-study scholar move between turning inward, toward our individual learning environments and the students, and turning outward, to society and strengthening democracy. In doing this, our studies can both endeavor to innovate and inspire a new generation of learners while teaching them to be active, engaged citizens. Engaging our preservice teachers in social studies focused self-study can help them improve as teachers of citizens while also becoming more active and engaged citizens themselves. For example, teaching controversy (Hess 2009) and teaching social issues (Evans and Saxe 2007) are two areas explored within the larger social studies education community that offers insights and frames for self-study research. By encouraging social studies educators to take the turn to self and examine an alignment of personal commitment to teaching controversy, we can simultaneously improve our ability to teach controversy, learn about controversy, and learn to engage with controversy in the public realm.

Social studies focused self-study can explore inquiry-based teaching methods and practices that are innovative, diverse, and engaging while considering the larger implications these practices have for democratic living. These self-studies can help us understand and explore authentic assessments that offer the opportunity to create learning connections that apply beyond the walls of the classroom to society and problems at large. Through such studies, we might endeavor to reimagine learning environments that engage our most substantial intrinsic and extrinsic motivations; demand our all in pursuing our best thinking, talents, efforts, and applications; and require respect for multiple ideas in sharing and discussing our individually and communally held moral and ethical values toward a more inclusive and equitable society. As well, this work can help us negotiate the undertaking of living in a world together and writing about how we taught, thought, and did so with our students, professional colleagues, and fellow citizens.

The deconstruction of self as a teacher of social studies in and of itself may help others see into how values influence who we are as educators. This extends beyond social studies education and can help others think about how they teach. Values such as democracy, voice, and deliberation that are core in social studies education are strongly tied to self-study and though our work may be situated in a social studies context the findings may apply far more broadly. In this regard self-study and social studies colleagues can use social studies focused self-study to create new knowledge and practice in the borderlands (Giroux 2005) of the two research communities.

What Should the Field of Social Studies Expect from a Social Studies Focused Self-Study?

As we read the studies and began to discuss them, we struggled with the idea of how much social studies is needed for the piece to be called a social studies focused self-study.

Our broad inclusion criteria in section “Selection Process,” identified as social studies because of context, led to the inclusion of research pieces that were only connected to social studies because one of the authors happened to be teaching in a social studies setting. Though the research may be located in a social studies context, the work may not be grounded in social studies literature or connect the findings to social studies. We found that studies could be placed on a spectrum from very little social studies connection (i.e., the context is social studies) to very detailed and consistent social studies connection (i.e., the context is social studies, and the study is clearly tied to the scholarly social studies literature – from the topic through the findings).

A piece written by one of this chapter’s authors provides an instructive example of the end of the spectrum with the least tie to social studies (Berry and Crowe 2006). It is clearly a self-study, but the authors do not delve into the nuances of social studies teacher education, the principles of practice of teaching social studies teachers, or how a critical friendship as a social studies educator might be different or similar to that of a science educator. Instead it is an example of a self-study in teacher education where at least one author happened to be engaging in self-study in a social studies context. When considering the literature, topic, and findings of the study, it is clearly a study of teacher education, not social studies teacher education. These and others like this add to the teacher education literature, but they caused us to wonder whether or not a study that occurs in a social studies context warrants the description, social studies focused self-study. An’s (2016) work is an example of a study on the end of the spectrum with a high level of detailed and consistent connection to social studies. In this case, the study is grounded in a social studies-related theoretical framework, social justice. The social justice frame comes through in the findings and discussion as well. Additionally, the study is aimed toward a social studies teacher education audience. Many studies fell along the spectrum between the two ends. We are not establishing a spectrum to place one’s study on but rather using the visual of a spectrum to illustrate the range and present a question that as a field we must consider: Where do we draw a line to say a self-study is contributing to social studies teaching and teacher education knowledge?

Just as we grappled with the idea of how much social studies connection is needed, we struggled with what qualifies as engaging in self-study. Self-study has grown greatly since LaBoskey’s guidance in the first handbook in 2004. For example, the construct of “the turn to self” is now used as a criteria for reviews of self-study work and often given in feedback as an area to emphasize. Though always present in some form since the beginning, it has emerged as another characteristic of self-study research. In the studies reviewed, there was a range of connection to self-study in the methods and methodology sections. Some authors identified their work as self-study (e.g., DeWitt and Freie 2005) or published in a self-study journal or conference proceeding but provided little to no methodological literature related to self-study, while others have robust and detailed methodological ties to self-study (e.g., Ritter 2010a). As well, many did not connect their work to the larger body of self-study (e.g., Martell 2015), while others are beginning to connect their self-study to other self-studies (e.g., Logan and Butler 2013). From all of this, the question we are left with is: What needs to be included in social studies focused self-study to be called self-study?

All of the reviewed sources were identified as self-study in some way. But what about work that was not identified as self-study. From personal experiences we know that some published studies were part of larger self-study endeavors but the published works do not explicitly name the work as self-study or did not publish as self-study venues. Except for personal communications, we would never know about these studies. Without clear self-study references, the work can never be understood as contributing to the broader self-study community. Some of our own work does this. As an example, Crowe (2004) and Crowe and Wilen (2003) are articles from studies in social studies education that are not explained as self-study but are research conducted in the author’s social studies education courses. Crowe is a self-study scholar. Since it is the work of one of us, we know that self-study methodology has been a great influence on the author, even if the publications themselves do not reflect that. Does this matter as we continue to engage in research?

Issues About the Field that Arose Within the Literature

A concern that arises when a set of literature is so small is that the work generally represents a small group of scholars. This is true here as well. Likewise, there are many connections among these authors. As you may have noticed from the lists of authors cited in the research, names show up often and repeatedly. Also, several of the repeated names are connected in some way. For example, Crowe and Hawley are colleagues at the same institution; Dinkelman advised Butler, Cuenca, Hawley, Powell, and Ritter during their doctoral work; and Crowe and Hawley advised both Hostetler and Levicky. These names are represented throughout various chapters and articles, both alone and among collaborations. By leveraging these long-standing relationships, this interconnected group can be advantageous to social studies teacher educators who are interested in self-study allowing new scholars to quickly become acquainted with many others in this research community. Someone new to self-study in social studies need only meet one member in the group to connect with a support system of scholars as they engage in their inquiry. However, we must be careful of the disadvantages of a small group: becoming insular, ceasing to challenge one another, or being perceived by others as an unwelcoming group because of the familiarity of those within the group. Examining the authorship of the self-study work reviewed, it is clear that others have become interested and engaged in self-study through the years. Several of these who become interested in self-study connected with a member of this smaller group and were supported by the community as described. We hope this continues. Yet, we must always be cautious to maintain openness and not allow long-standing relationships in the community to push others away.

We are troubled by the limited diversity of race, ethnicity, and, as previously shared, geographic region of the social studies teacher educators publishing self-study, as well as the limited variety of publication outlets. For example, almost all of the authors are from the United States. A lack of diversity like this can limit the questions we pursue, the capacity of our inquiries to engage and challenge one another, and the overall depth and breadth of the knowledge base we build. What does that mean for our work when our research is dominated by scholars from a single nation? Whose voices and perspectives are we missing? What forms of knowledge and experiences of teaching social studies and teaching social studies teachers are lost when social studies focused self-study has not spread far beyond the political borders of one nation-state?

The small number of scholars in the group also brings up concerns about supporting scholars to continue to engage in social studies focused self-study. Making sure our work has an influence in both areas – self-study research and social studies education – might seem difficult. As well, it could seem like our research would have a larger impact in a larger teacher education forum. This may push some to move to publish studies more germane to a larger teacher education audience and to situate social studies in a secondary position in their work, or not at all. In making this choice, the potential for limiting the influence within the social studies community becomes at risk. At the same time, someone may choose to focus on the social studies aspect of their research and, in the process, lose the connection to other self-study literature stunting the expansion of self-study.

Pushing Beyond the Current State

Over the years, we have been excited every time we see another self-study shared by a social studies educator. Despite seeing the numbers of items increase, social studies focused self-study is still in its early stages of development. What is encouraging is that we are poised to chart the path ahead. So, this is where we are. And, in reverence to Dr. King and the importance of teaching for a democratic life, social justice, and transformation, we ask ourselves and our social studies education colleagues: Where do we go from here to have the impact we want? We recommend (1) that social studies focused self-studies be situated more strongly in social studies education literature, (2) that we expand the questions that social studies focused self-study scholars ask, and (3) that the field engage in conversations about what qualities should be seen in social studies focused self-study.

First, we saw many works by social studies teacher educators that are clearly focused on teacher education while not specifically contextualized in the social studies. We propose that social studies scholars who engage in self-study further develop the social studies connections in their self-study work to enhance and expand the knowledge of practice in social studies teacher education. We suggest that those of us who engage in this work delve into conversations about what makes a self-study a social studies focused self-study, how we can use social studies focused self-studies to better inform our practices, and how we can frame and publish works that highlight the connection to social studies.

Second, we saw a limited number of scholars engaging in social studies focused self-study. We call to our social studies education colleagues, those only starting in the field, those social studies colleagues who are also self-study scholars, and those engaged in a wide variety of types of research besides self-study to engage in social studies focused self-study. We need a wide variety of people representing many experiences and perspectives engaging in social studies focused self-study to further develop the knowledge base and to have a greater impact on teaching for democratic life. If our perspectives are not diverse, our impact will be limited. We want to encourage scholars to find ways to push and question the teaching and learning in our field in ways that only self-study can. With studies that do this, we gain a richer, more complex understanding of social studies teaching and social studies teacher education. To make systematic and transformational change that innovates social studies teacher education, we need to know more about ourselves and what we do. We need a robust body of knowledge about what it means to be, grow, learn, and change as a social studies educator in addition to our strong body of work that studies K-12 student and preservice teacher learning. We have a solid foundation, but conversations should continue so we can further develop our understandings and improve our teaching. As a start, we should explore how, as social studies teacher educators, we conceptualize democracy and teach preservice teachers to teach for a democratic life.

Third, we found a wide variety of detail regarding the methods and methodology used. We recommend that to have a stronger knowledge base and to help others use our work that members of the field engage in conversations about the methods and methodology involved in good social studies focused self-study. We ask that self-study and social studies education scholars discuss: the qualities of a good social studies focused self-study; how to build on one another’s work to better understand social studies teacher education; and ways to support one another in engaging in this work.

As social studies teacher educators, we are responsible for preparing future teachers to educate the youth of our citizenry. We have a responsibility to push for changes, to uncover issues, and to rattle the systems that exist. That is what transformative teacher educators and researchers do to better their fields. That is what citizens do to make a better democracy. That is what social studies is about – creating good citizens. Therefore, as good scholarly citizens, we should model this. We believe that social studies focused self-study is an excellent way to do this.

Cross-References