View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Inquiry as a Compass: Revising a Social Studies Education Program around Questions, Tasks, and Sources

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Inquiry as a Compass: Revising a Social Studies Education Program around Questions, Tasks, and Sources
Language: English
Authors: Kathy Swan, Ryan M. Crowley (ORCID 0000-0002-8501-8861), Gerry Swan
Source: Teacher Educator. 2025 60(1):104-116.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Preservice Teachers, Preservice Teacher Education, Social Studies, Active Learning, Inquiry, Questioning Techniques, Student Teacher Supervisors, Student Teacher Evaluation, Curriculum Development, Educational Change, Classroom Observation Techniques, Lesson Observation Criteria, Task Analysis, Program Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: Kentucky (Lexington)
DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2024.2418859
ISSN: 0887-8730
Abstract: In response to national and state trends promoting inquiry-based social studies over the last decade, social studies teacher educators at the University of Kentucky revamped their pre-service program to create alignment around the key inquiry concepts of questions, tasks, and sources. Part of the program revision involved the creation of a new observation instrument to assess students during their field experiences. Drawing from four years of data from the instrument, the authors discuss what the observational data reveals about the strengths and weaknesses of their students' inquiry practices as well as what the data suggests about program coherence between university coursework and field experiences.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1456343
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFGeANVXbWZ5UWVUxDrL5fRAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHhBo5CHn7HHKanc_wIBEICBm0oDV042eHjJTrFmHyb0QNNFKhbR3n5AiqJo4W1aAlmW1zTIMry3xamEL2eywavkmbFpGsmsRvZF-GyuWLN7_N0w0X-NflRaaFxyeCQu-GrkFl03tIMk19jiWcVGowQxQfC0cFB9F0LmpDd2QJu0-a_bIz2veUMB0u7D3cwRuCzKSJhRvg5as8yQLJ9axC5ASHF7tI3Oimc5ytHa
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182091075;gxz01jan.25;2025Jan09.01:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182091075-1">Inquiry as a Compass: Revising a Social Studies Education Program Around Questions, Tasks, and Sources </title> <p>In response to national and state trends promoting inquiry-based social studies over the last decade, social studies teacher educators at the University of Kentucky revamped their pre-service program to create alignment around the key inquiry concepts of questions, tasks, and sources. Part of the program revision involved the creation of a new observation instrument to assess students during their field experiences. Drawing from four years of data from the instrument, the authors discuss what the observational data reveals about the strengths and weaknesses of their students' inquiry practices as well as what the data suggests about program coherence between university coursework and field experiences.</p> <p>In the early 2010s, social studies scholars and advocates were seeking to revitalize the social studies field in K-12 schools. In years prior, <emph>No Child Left Behind</emph> legislation and the spread of the Common Core Standards movement reduced social studies instructional time (Pederson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]). As schools emphasized test preparation for literacy and mathematics, the disciplinary content of social studies education took a back seat. Social studies, even when taught, often became viewed as an additional subject to emphasize reading and writing to satisfy standards mandates and to improve students' literacy test scores (Pace, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]). To push back against the marginalization, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) published the <emph>College, Career and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards</emph> in 2013.</p> <p>The C3 Framework was supported by a coalition of constituencies (e.g. state departments of education, professional organizations, K-12 teachers, university faculty) often prone to division. The drive for curricular relevancy galvanized the diverse stakeholders to support a unified vision for K-12 social studies education. The groups found common ground in crafting the C3's mission to prepare students for citizenship in a pluralistic democracy. The C3 would help students develop the necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions to inquire, consider multiple points of view, and take action within the civic square (NCSS, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>]). The opening of the C3 reads,</p> <p>Now more than ever, students need the intellectual power to recognize societal problems; ask good questions and develop robust investigations into them; consider possible solutions and consequences; separate evidence-based claims from parochial opinions; and communicate and act upon what they learn. (NCSS, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>], p. 6)</p> <p>The C3 provided a roadmap for elevating social studies toward ethical citizenship and critical thinking (Humphries et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]). Building on foundational concepts such as constructivism (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]), social interaction (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]), critical thinking (Bruner, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>]) and dialogue (Shor & Freire, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]), the C3 called for students to engage with real world problems through a process of disciplinary inquiry and civic action. While those ideas were not new to the field, the C3 codified them into a national standards document that now shapes the majority of state standards documents and that influences teacher education programs (Grant et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]; NCSS, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]; New et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]). The C3 has emerged as an important chapter in the history of social studies education.</p> <p>Over the last decade, we have reshaped our program around the process of inquiry (Grant et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Kentucky Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>]; Swan et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]). While we made important shifts in our methods coursework, much of this work has centered on clearing up the conflicting signals that our students often received from university faculty, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors. Through cultivating partnerships with schools, we were able to place students with host teachers who were committed to and who practiced inquiry-based social studies. By developing the capabilities of our university supervisors, we ensured that our students were being coached toward developing inquiry pedagogies. The improved alignment meant that stakeholders in our program were using the same vocabulary and working toward common goals in the development of our students (Bain & Moje, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>As part of this retooling, we realized that our program assessments also needed to support our new vision. The observation instrument used by our supervisors and cooperating teachers during observations emerged as an important piece of the puzzle. Although the instrument was not necessarily problematic in its measures, it did not target the instructional practices we wanted to see our students enacting in the field. Herein, we discuss how we developed a new observation protocol that aligned with our program's focus. Additionally, as our students have now been evaluated with this instrument for four years, we explore what the scoring data reveals about our students' development of inquiry practices and what it reveals about how our university supervisors and cooperating teachers perceive inquiry in action. Our findings suggest signs of progress toward a shared culture of inquiry across our program while also pointing us in new directions.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-2">Building a foundation of inquiry</hd> <p>The C3 Framework (NCSS, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]), anchored by its inquiry arc (Figure 1), provided a model for states to shift their social studies standards toward an inquiry orientation. In order to translate the C3 into a workable model for K-12 social studies practitioners, Swan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]) developed the Inquiry Design Model (IDM). The IDM articulated a theory of inquiry-based curriculum centered on a one-page "blueprint" that defined three essential elements: questions, tasks, and sources. When teachers develop inquiry lessons or units with the IDM, they craft compelling and supporting questions to drive their investigations; they curate sources for student analysis; and they design formative and summative tasks that help students build knowledge and construct evidence-based arguments that respond to the questions posed by the IDM.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. The C3 Framework's Inquiry Arc including a summary of the four dimensions.</p> <p>The inquiry fundamentals of questions, tasks, and sources (QTS) guide our teacher education program. We support students in the design, implementation, and assessment of inquiry lessons, both using the more extensive IDM format and in developing smaller-scale inquiries driven by the QTS ethos. We help students conceptualize how to make inquiry routine in their future classrooms, modeling how to anchor a curriculum map with IDMs and helping them to see how QTS can become the backbone of any social studies lesson, including lessons with some direct instruction (Swan et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>]). When our students present or lead discussions in our methods courses, they arrive with compelling and supporting questions, sources for students to discuss and analyze, and tasks to help organize the discussion and to scaffold interaction with the sources.</p> <p>Controlling the content within our methods courses proved relatively easy compared with creating consistency of messaging between the university classroom and the field experiences. While it was crucial that we partnered with cooperating teachers and university supervisors who supported our program goals, we also needed a tool to provide consistent feedback to our students. For years, we used a clinical observation form that gauged general teaching strategies as a way to facilitate conversations between the pre-service teacher, the cooperating teacher (CT), and the university supervisor (US) after an observation. The indicators on the form drove the post-observation conferences. Not surprisingly, we struggled to stay on message about inquiry-based teaching. In 2020, we constructed a new observation form that emphasized our fundamentals: questions, tasks, and sources.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-3">The questions, tasks and sources (QTS) Protocol</hd> <p>We created the QTS Protocol to promote cohesion and clarity between coursework and student teaching placements, while reinforcing the importance of questions, tasks, and sources in an inquiry-based social studies classroom (Swan et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]). Although we had a vision of what the protocol should include, we also wanted the expertise of other social studies scholars and practitioners. To allow for this professional input, we conducted a Delphi Panel as a consensus-building methodology (Avella, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]). We began with a draft version of the instrument and created surveys that allowed our panel of university and K-12 social studies teachers to provide feedback. The panel completed four rounds of surveys. After each round, we adjusted the protocol: sometimes changing language, sometimes adding indicators, sometimes removing indicators. On the strength of their feedback, our program solidified the QTS Protocol (Figures 2–4) and began using it with our students in spring 2021.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Use of questions.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Use of performance tasks.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Use of disciplinary sources.</p> <p>The QTS Protocol is composed of four parts: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>) Use of Questions; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>) Use of Performance Tasks; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>) Use of Disciplinary Sources; and, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>) Creates and Maintains Learning Environment. Each part of the instrument includes a set of indicators for each category that could be observable in one of our student's lessons. Each indicator is scored on a four point scale by either the student's US or CT.</p> <p>Below, we detail the questions, tasks, and sources portions of the instrument. Since our initial implementation in 2021, we revised the <emph>Learning Environment</emph> section to reflect our program's emphasis on building trust with students through inquiry. The <emph>Learning Environment</emph> section of the protocol is vital to how we coach our student teachers, but for the purposes of this article, we focus our attention around the three core inquiry elements: <emph>Use of Questions</emph>, <emph>Use of Tasks</emph>, and <emph>Use of Sources.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0182091075-4">Use of questions</hd> <p>Our pre-service teachers are expected to frame their instruction with compelling and supporting questions. In the QTS Protocol, we score the use of these questions, but also the quality of and relationship between the questions. Compelling questions should be academically rigorous and interesting to students, while also setting up students to engage in argumentation (Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]) in response. Question alignment is important as well. Supporting questions should build students' understanding of content and help them to collect evidence that will allow them to answer a lesson's compelling question. The protocol also assesses how our teachers use questions throughout the lesson to check for understanding and whether the students are prompted to generate questions of their own (See Figure 2).</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-5">Use of performance tasks</hd> <p>The QTS Protocol assesses the quality of formative and summative performance tasks in our pre-service teachers' lessons. We hope to see formative tasks that check for students' understanding and that provide feedback as students progress toward developing summative arguments. Formative tasks may require students to organize or compile information, to discuss concepts with peers, or to deliberate with small groups or the whole class. We look for tasks that allow students to engage in disciplinary thinking skills as well as argumentation. Extension tasks, such as <emph>Taking Informed Action</emph> (Middleton, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]), are often not observable within a lesson but remain on the protocol due to their importance within the IDM structure (See Figure 3).</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-6">Use of disciplinary sources</hd> <p>The QTS Protocol signals to our pre-service teachers that their lessons should include a variety of sources (e.g., images, text, multimedia) for their students to analyze in order to respond to the lesson's compelling and supporting questions. Through their selection of sources, we want our pre-service teachers to demonstrate their knowledge of the subject matter, including their ability to share multiple perspectives and historically marginalized voices (Ender, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]). We also assess the extent to which our students include instructional scaffolds to support source analysis by their students and if they make efforts to modify sources to make them more accessible (See Figure 4).</p> <p>The QTS Protocol helps to focus the conversations among the teaching triad (student teacher, CT, and US) that occur before and after classroom observations. In the next section, we describe how we collected and analyzed the QTS Protocol data across four years of implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-7">Data summary and method of analysis</hd> <p>Kentucky state regulations require our preservice teachers to have a minimum of four documented observations during the student teaching semester. Over the four years we have used the QTS Protocol (2021–2024), 53 students matriculated through our secondary social studies certification program. University supervisors (210 observations) and cooperating teachers (124 observations) scored a total of 334 observations with the protocol during the time frame studied. Each indicator on the QTS Protocol is scored on a four-point scale: basic, developing, satisfactory, exemplary (see Table 1 below). Any indicator can also be scored as "Not a Focus (N)," which allows the observer to bypass scoring an item if it was not integral to the lesson. Students do not receive an overall rating for the observation as a whole.</p> <p>Table 1. Scoring options for the QTS Protocol.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Score</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>N</td><td>Not a focus. If the item should have been present but was missing, mark it 1</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Observed with implementation at a basic level</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Observed with implementation at a developing level</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Observed with implementation at a satisfactory level</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Observed with implementation at an exemplary level</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To prepare the data for analysis, we produced descriptive statistics of the QTS scores, organizing score averages by observer (CT or US), indicator (each of the 16 items of the QTS instrument), cohort (2021–2024), and submission date within the semester. Each observation was placed within one of four quarters in the 14-week student teaching semester, allowing us to see how individual students' and cohorts' scores changed over time. We averaged the scores for each indicator and created composite scores for each of the three sections of the QTS protocol. With this data, we looked for trends in how our students scored on individual indicators and on the three QTS sections across each semester, overall within a given semester, and over the 4-year period. We also assessed differences between CT and US scoring across the same time frames. We will provide more details on the inferential statistics used in our analysis within the findings section.</p> <p>In the following section, we share findings from our analysis of the 334 observation reports. These findings provide insight into ways we could improve our program around inquiry-based social studies. Specifically, we explored what the scoring data revealed about our students' development of inquiry practices and what it revealed about how our university supervisors and cooperating teachers perceive inquiry in action.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-8">Findings</hd> <p>We identified four findings through our analysis of the QTS data: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) stability of the QTS Protocol over time; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) student growth across the student teaching semester; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>) variability in scoring between CTs and USs; and, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>) specific areas for programmatic improvement.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-9">Finding #1: there was a stable use of the QTS protocol by users across the four years</hd> <p>As part of our analysis of the QTS scores we wanted to see how our USs and CTs were making sense of the instrument across the four years. To do so, we conducted a MANOVA analysis of the 16 items on the QTS Protocol using observer type (US or CT), occurrence of observation within the student teacher experience (1st–4th quarter), and academic year (2021–2024) as factors. We were curious if the analysis would reveal any statistical abnormalities that might suggest shifts in how the observers were using the instrument.</p> <p>None of the 16 items had a statistically significant difference for the academic year-by-observer type interaction. Although we found some oscillations in scores between years, which could be explained by the relative strength of individuals in the four different cohorts, there were no significant shifts in scoring patterns by the USs or the CTs. This consistency suggests a stable use of the instrument by our observers across the four years. This gives us greater confidence that changes in our students' scores across the student teaching semester reflect student performance rather than variation in how our observers interpreted the instrument.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-10">Finding #2: student teachers received increasingly higher scores for their use of questions,...</hd> <p>The most encouraging finding from our analysis was that our students' observation scores from 2021 to 2024 show steady improvement over the four quarters of the student teaching semester. Figure 5 shows the composite scores for each section of the QTS instrument by quarter of the student teaching semester. The composite scores include data from all 53 students from the four cohorts who moved through the program from 2021 to 2024. Composite scores for Use of Questions domains ranged from 2.32 in Q1 to 3.14 in Q4. Composite scores for Use of Tasks ranged from 2.32 in Q1 to 3.08 in Q4. Composite scores for Use of Sources ranged from 2.51 in Q1 to 3.16 in Q4. Overall, our students consistently scored highest on the Use of Sources section for each of the four quarters. However, the scores across all three domains generally clustered in the 2s (observed with implementation at a developing level) in the first part of the semester and steadily grew to 3s (observed with implementation at a satisfactory level) by the end of the semester.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 5. Composite scores of use of questions, use of tasks, use of sources by quarter.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-11">Finding #3: the cooperating teachers were more generous in scoring than the university superv...</hd> <p>Our analysis also revealed that CTs assigned higher scores to our student teachers than the USs. Table 2 shows the average composite scores for each section of the QTS instrument (Use of Questions, Use of Tasks, Use of Sources) across the four quarters of the semester broken out by observer type. US and CT scores both demonstrate a steady increase in composite scores across the student teaching semester. Within this trend, the difference between the mean scores of the two observer types remained stable. Table 2 shows at least a 0.25 difference between the CT and US means for each of the four quarters when scoring student teachers' Use of Questions. Table 2 shows similar gaps at each quarter for Use of Tasks and Use of Sources, suggesting that CTs appear to be assigning higher scores to student teachers in all three domains throughout the semester. We will discuss possible explanations for and implications of this trend in the discussion section.</p> <p>Table 2. Composite scores on use of questions, tasks and sources by cooperating teachers and university supervisors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Use of questions composite score</td><td>Use of tasks composite score</td><td>Use of sources composite score</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Q1</td><td>Q2</td><td>Q3</td><td>Q4</td><td>Q1</td><td>Q2</td><td>Q3</td><td>Q4</td><td>Q1</td><td>Q2</td><td>Q3</td><td>Q4</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Cooperating Teacher</td><td>2.6</td><td char=".">2.9</td><td char=".">3.1</td><td char=".">3.3</td><td char=".">2.6</td><td char=".">2.9</td><td char=".">3.0</td><td char=".">3.3</td><td char=".">2.8</td><td char=".">3.1</td><td char=".">3.1</td><td char=".">3.4</td></tr><tr><td>University Supervisor</td><td>2.2</td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">2.7</td><td char=".">3.0</td><td char=".">2.2</td><td char=".">2.4</td><td char=".">2.7</td><td char=".">3.0</td><td char=".">2.4</td><td char=".">2.7</td><td char=".">2.8</td><td char=".">3.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0182091075-12">Finding #4: CTs and USs point to three areas for growth: use of student generated questions,...</hd> <p>While we were pleased to see steady growth in our students' QTS composite scores over the course of the student teaching semester as discussed in the second finding, our analysis also revealed potential areas for improvement. When analyzing scores for the individual QTS indicators, three areas emerged as focal points for student growth. Table 3 provides a summary of the mean scores for each QTS indicator by observer type and quarter. As noted previously, student teachers' scored the highest within the Use of Sources category. T-tests showed significant differences between all three sections of the instrument (<emph>p</emph> <.05). Effect sizes were 0.14 between Questions and Tasks, 0.25 between Sources and Questions, and 0.35 between Sources and Tasks. The three lowest scoring items were incorporating student-generated questions during lessons (<emph>M</emph> = 2.49); use of extension and taking informed action tasks (<emph>M</emph> = 2.62); and clarity on argumentation (<emph>M</emph> = 2.67). It is important to note, however, that even these three scores fell within the developing and satisfactory levels. In the discussion section, we will explore potential reasons for our students' lower scores on these 3 indicators as well as note some programmatic shifts we are planning in response to our analysis of the individual QTS indicator scores.</p> <p>Table 3. Mean scores for item ratings by cooperating teachers and university supervisors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Cooperating teacher</td><td>University supervisor</td><td /></tr><tr><td>QTS Section</td><td>QTS Indicator</td><td>Q1</td><td>Q2</td><td>Q3</td><td>Q4</td><td>Q1</td><td>Q2</td><td>Q3</td><td>Q4</td><td>Total</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Use of questions</td><td>Compelling Questions</td><td char=".">3.36</td><td char=".">2.92</td><td char=".">2.90</td><td char=".">3.05</td><td char=".">2.61</td><td char=".">2.69</td><td char=".">2.80</td><td char=".">2.75</td><td char=".">2.82</td></tr><tr><td>Supporting Questions</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">2.93</td><td char=".">2.52</td><td char=".">2.65</td><td char=".">2.70</td><td char=".">2.65</td><td char=".">2.79</td></tr><tr><td>Question Alignment</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">2.97</td><td char=".">3.08</td><td char=".">2.55</td><td char=".">2.67</td><td char=".">2.63</td><td char=".">2.88</td><td char=".">2.84</td></tr><tr><td>Student-generated Questions</td><td char=".">2.29</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">2.75</td><td char=".">2.79</td><td char=".">2.45</td><td char=".">2.26</td><td char=".">1.97</td><td char=".">2.33</td><td char=".">2.49</td></tr><tr><td>Diagnostic Questions</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">3.40</td><td char=".">2.94</td><td char=".">2.95</td><td char=".">2.44</td><td char=".">3.08</td><td char=".">2.48</td><td char=".">2.83</td><td char=".">2.85</td></tr><tr><td>Use of tasks</td><td>Formative Tasks</td><td char=".">2.77</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">2.97</td><td char=".">3.02</td><td char=".">2.39</td><td char=".">2.83</td><td char=".">2.48</td><td char=".">2.79</td><td char=".">2.77</td></tr><tr><td>Argumentation Scaffolds</td><td char=".">2.79</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">2.83</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">2.81</td><td char=".">2.51</td><td char=".">2.69</td><td char=".">2.77</td></tr><tr><td>Summative Tasks</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">3.07</td><td char=".">2.91</td><td char=".">3.06</td><td char=".">2.66</td><td char=".">2.97</td><td char=".">2.50</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">2.81</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity on Argumentation</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">2.94</td><td char=".">2.88</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">2.37</td><td char=".">2.18</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">2.67</td></tr><tr><td>Extensions and Action</td><td char=".">2.14</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">2.80</td><td char=".">2.48</td><td char=".">2.58</td><td char=".">2.00</td><td char=".">2.47</td><td char=".">2.62</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborative Learning</td><td char=".">2.77</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">3.03</td><td char=".">3.10</td><td char=".">2.36</td><td char=".">2.88</td><td char=".">2.35</td><td char=".">2.86</td><td char=".">2.76</td></tr><tr><td>Use of sources</td><td>Variety of Source Types</td><td char=".">3.50</td><td char=".">3.31</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">3.43</td><td char=".">2.62</td><td char=".">2.98</td><td char=".">2.63</td><td char=".">2.90</td><td char=".">2.99</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple Perspectives</td><td char=".">3.27</td><td char=".">3.18</td><td char=".">3.06</td><td char=".">3.05</td><td char=".">2.75</td><td char=".">2.70</td><td char=".">2.67</td><td char=".">2.90</td><td char=".">2.90</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptation of Sources</td><td char=".">3.08</td><td char=".">2.91</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">2.98</td><td char=".">2.49</td><td char=".">2.72</td><td char=".">2.34</td><td char=".">2.60</td><td char=".">2.71</td></tr><tr><td>Coherent Sources</td><td char=".">3.14</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">3.10</td><td char=".">3.12</td><td char=".">2.65</td><td char=".">2.95</td><td char=".">2.68</td><td char=".">2.83</td><td char=".">2.92</td></tr><tr><td>Meaningful Sources</td><td char=".">3.36</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">2.67</td><td char=".">3.09</td><td char=".">2.80</td><td char=".">2.79</td><td char=".">2.96</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0182091075-13">Discussion and implications</hd> <p>The findings from our analysis of our QTS Protocol data are encouraging for our program while also pointing out areas of growth. As outlined in the introduction, trends in social studies education over the last decade (Grant et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref33">9</reflink>]; NCSS, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]; NCSS, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</reflink>]; New et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]) have encouraged us to commit our program to the development of inquiry social studies teachers. To do so, we have been working toward greater consistency of messaging and support for our students between their university coursework and their field experiences (Bain & Moje, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]). By investigating four years of observation scores on our QTS Protocol, we hoped to see how our CTs and USs are perceiving inquiry in action, while also investigating the areas of strength and weakness in our students' inquiry practice. Further, this focus on our students' practice in their field placements responds to calls from social studies educators (Adler, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>]; Crocco & Livingston, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]) for bridging the divide between university coursework and field placements. Below, we will discuss our findings and then lay out implications for future practice. We begin by discussing the findings that relate to how our CTs and USs are using the instrument and then turn to what our students' scores tell us about our program's strengths and weaknesses.</p> <p>First, we were able to use inferential statistical analysis to establish that our CTs and USs were scoring student observations with the QTS Protocol in a stable fashion. This suggests that both of our observer types have enough of an understanding of what each indicator is assessing that their scores do not shift significantly over time. This does not necessarily mean that each observer understands each indicator perfectly or in the same way, but it gives us confidence that the shifts we see in our students' scores over time reflect changes in student behavior rather than variance in observers' scoring. Further, as we discussed in the third finding, CTs consistently scored our student teachers higher than did their USs. While we did not anticipate this trend emerging, the number of observations we analyzed (US = 214; CT = 124) give us confidence that it has strong support. We hypothesize that our CTs' relative generosity in scoring may relate to their familiarity with the classroom and students. The CTs also have more sustained interaction with our student teachers and provide them with more informal feedback daily. Further, our experience suggests that the USs can feel pressure to be more critical in their scoring, even if they do so to promote conversation with one of the student teachers after an observation.</p> <p>Turning to what our findings tell us about our students' strengths and weaknesses as inquiry practitioners, the most promising trend we identified is that our students' composite scores for all three sections of the protocol grew steadily over the four quarters of the student teaching semester. While we are encouraged by this finding, we also realize that growth during this crucial time in our students' development should be expected. By the time a student has been observed for the third or fourth time, they should be more comfortable leading instruction and more familiar with the inquiry practices their observers are looking for in the observation. When we look closer at that improvement in composite scores, we see that the sources composite score was consistently scored the highest. This trend is perhaps explained by the ease with which an observer can see a teacher use sources with their students. However, as the data for the individual QTS indicators from Table 3 shows, our students generally scored well across the sources indicators (i.e., variety, multiple perspectives, meaningful, etc.). This gives us additional confidence that students have made thoughtful source use a standard part of their teaching practice.</p> <p>Conversely, our students' tasks composite score was consistently scored the lowest. The data from the individual QTS indicators in Table 3 confirms that two of the three lowest individual indicator means fall within the Use of Tasks section. The indicator related to taking informed action and other extension tasks is the second lowest. The lower scores on this item align with Thacker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]) study, which noted teachers' difficulty with taking informed action and other extension tasks. Such tasks are often left by the wayside due to time constraints or given only cursory attention within a lesson. Our students' lower scores on the indicator related to argumentation is more concerning, however. We devote considerable attention in our methods classes to helping students conceptualize evidence-based, argumentative claims as a form of summative assessment for an inquiry (e.g., Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>]). These scores suggest that we have not been clear enough about what constitutes argumentative writing or that we have not encouraged our students to be explicit about the qualities of argumentation when they teach lessons in their placements. The other low-scoring indicator involved our student teachers' use of student-generated questions to shape instruction. Again, this score provides useful information for our program. While our students generally score well in the questions indicators (compelling, supporting, alignment, etc.), they do not appear to be creating space for students to pose questions of their own. Perhaps like extension tasks, this indicator may represent a more ambitious form of teaching that students leave out unless time allows. Upon reflection, our program has not done enough to emphasize or explain this practice. As we move forward, we plan to devote attention to modeling how our students can elicit questions in their instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>The analysis of our QTS Protocol data has demonstrated areas where our program appears to be strong and areas in which we need to grow. Overall, we feel encouraged by the investments we have made in our CTs and USs, and it appears the QTS Protocol has helped our program stakeholders to be focused on similar outcomes. Looking ahead, we hope to further refine our QTS Protocol by focusing on the fourth domain, <emph>Building a Trustworthy Classroom</emph>. In doing so, we will explore the practical aspects of building a classroom context for inquiry and the role that dispositions play in the development of social studies pre-service teachers. In 2020, we published a documentary film project showcasing inquiry teachers who share a common belief that there needs to be a <emph>culture of inquiry</emph> that begins with trusting students (Swan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]). Since the release of that film, we have built a framework that includes three inquiry processes that build a culture of trust in the classroom: deliberation, collaboration, and production (Swan, forthcoming). We will help our students be explicit about using these processes within the inquiry practices of questions, tasks, and sources. We feel that having high school students engage in deliberation, collaboration, and production will engender empathy, interdependence, and agency. We also continue to explore how we can model and operationalize all of the QTS indicators for our students. We are currently working with our CTs to compile a set of short video case studies we call Inquiry Snapshots, which capture the enactment of specific inquiry practices. In the fall of 2023 and spring of 2024, we had our students use the QTS Protocol to score the videos. This allowed them to learn more about the indicators and to promote more meaningful conversations around what the indicators look like in action. The Inqiuiry Snapshots are another in line of continued efforts to strengthen the quality and coherence of our program, all using inquiry as a compass.</p> <hd id="AN0182091075-15">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0182091075-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 329 – 351) Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Avella, J. R. (2016). Delphi panels: Research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 305 – 321. https://doi.org/10.28945/3561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bain, R., & Moje, E. (2012). Mapping the teacher education terrain for novices (vol. 93, pp. 62 – 65). Phi Delta.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref39" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Crocco, M. S., & Livingston, E. (2017). Becoming an "expert" social studies teacher: What we know about teacher education and professional development. In M. M. Manfra and C. M. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 360 – 384). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref28" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ender, T. (2021). Using counter-narratives to expand from the margins. Curriculum Inquiry, 51 (4), 437 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2021.1947733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Grant, S. G., Lee, J., & Swan, K. (2023). The state of the C3 framework: An inquiry revolution in the making. Social Education, 87 (6), 361 – 366.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Grant, S. G., Swan, K., & Lee, J. (2022). Inquiry-based practice in social studies education: Understanding the inquiry design model. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humphries, M. L., Ward, A. E., & McCormick, M. M. (2022). Recognize, ask, do: Teaching young children to act on injustice by "reading" the world. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 35 (2), 26 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kentucky Department of Education. (2022). Educating for civic life in a democracy, Kentucky academic standards for social studies. https://<ulink href="http://www.education.ky.gov/curriculum/standards/kyacadstand/Documents/Kentucky%5fAcademic%5fStandards%5ffor%5fSocial%5fStudies.pdf">www.education.ky.gov/curriculum/standards/kyacadstand/Documents/Kentucky%5fAcademic%5fStandards%5ffor%5fSocial%5fStudies.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, R. (2021). What's in a claim? A framework for helping students write persuasive claims. Social Education, 85 (2), 116 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Middleton, T. (2016). From past to present: Taking informed action. Social Education, 80 (6), 362 – 364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2017). National standards for the preparation of social studies teachers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> New, R., Swan, K., Lee, J., & Grant, S. G. (2021). The state of social studies standards: What is the impact of the C3 framework? Social Education, 85 (4), 239 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pace, J. (2012). Teaching literacy through social studies under no child left behind. Journal of Social Studies Research, 36 (4), 329 – 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pederson, P. V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the no child left behind act on non assessed subjects. Clearing House, 80 (6), 287 – 291. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.6.287-291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). What is the "dialogical method" of teaching? Journal of Education, 169 (3), 11 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748716900303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swan, K., Crowley, R., & Swan, G. (2020). The signal and the noise: Coaching pre-service candidates to teach with questions, tasks, and sources. Social Education, 84 (2), 100 – 107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swan, K., Crowley, R., Grant, S. G., Lee, J., Swan, G., Stivers, C., & Sweeney, G. (2021). Making inquiry possible: A film project on building a culture of inquiry. Social Education, 85 (1), 26 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swan, K., Grant, S. G., & Lee, J. (2018). Inquiry design model: Building inquiries in social studies. National Council for the Social Studies and C3Teachers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thacker, E. S., Lee, J. K., & Friedman, A. M. (2017). Teaching with the C3 framework: Surveying teachers' beliefs and practices. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 41 (2), 89 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2016.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kathy Swan; Ryan M. Crowley and Gerry Swan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref42"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1456343
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Inquiry as a Compass: Revising a Social Studies Education Program around Questions, Tasks, and Sources
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathy+Swan%22">Kathy Swan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ryan+M%2E+Crowley%22">Ryan M. Crowley</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8861">0000-0002-8501-8861</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gerry+Swan%22">Gerry Swan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Teacher+Educator%22"><i>Teacher Educator</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1):104-116.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Studies%22">Social Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questioning+Techniques%22">Questioning Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teacher+Supervisors%22">Student Teacher Supervisors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teacher+Evaluation%22">Student Teacher Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Observation+Techniques%22">Classroom Observation Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lesson+Observation+Criteria%22">Lesson Observation Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+Analysis%22">Task Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kentucky+%28Lexington%29%22">Kentucky (Lexington)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/08878730.2024.2418859
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0887-8730
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In response to national and state trends promoting inquiry-based social studies over the last decade, social studies teacher educators at the University of Kentucky revamped their pre-service program to create alignment around the key inquiry concepts of questions, tasks, and sources. Part of the program revision involved the creation of a new observation instrument to assess students during their field experiences. Drawing from four years of data from the instrument, the authors discuss what the observational data reveals about the strengths and weaknesses of their students' inquiry practices as well as what the data suggests about program coherence between university coursework and field experiences.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1456343
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1456343
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/08878730.2024.2418859
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 104
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inquiry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questioning Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teacher Supervisors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teacher Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Observation Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lesson Observation Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Task Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kentucky (Lexington)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Inquiry as a Compass: Revising a Social Studies Education Program around Questions, Tasks, and Sources
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathy Swan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ryan M. Crowley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gerry Swan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0887-8730
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Teacher Educator
              Type: main
ResultId 1