RESEARCH IN REVIEW

Edited by the ASCD Research Council James Raths, Chairman

Cognitive Learning- and the Social Studies

THEODORE KALTSOUNIS

V^OGNITIVE learning in the so cial studies refers to those objectives that are related to knowledge and knowing and to the ways these objectives are attained. Cognitive learning includes concepts and generaliza tions as well as intellectual skills and abilities needed to implement independently the process of conceptualization.

The literature does not give precise and clear-cut definitions of the various specific cognitive components. Especially there is confusion in distinguishing between what is a concept and what is a generalization. Myles Platt (28), for example, reviewed several sources and discovered that a number of terms, including "generalization" and "prin ciple," are used as substitutes for the term "concept." This is not to say, however, that there is no consensus as far as the definitions of these terms are concerned. A concept is usually a word or a phrase identifying a group of objects or ideas with common char acteristics. A generalization is a declarative statement of a relationship between two or more concepts that has broad applicability in time and space.

A number of studies have been con ducted to determine the various intellectual skills and abilities needed by children to func tion successfully as members and students of society. The Indiana experiments (20) ar rived at a model of reflective thinking that included the following skills and abilities: orientation, hypothesis, definition, explora

tion, evidencing, and generalization. In other words, students and teacher become sensitive to an existing problem situation, they propose a solution to it, and they attempt to arrive at a consensus of definitions of related ter minology. Deductively, then, they proceed to test the hypothesis in terms of the validity of its implications and in the ligllt of empirical data. Finally, based on the evKJence avail able, students and teacher reach a conclusion that represents the best solution/o the prob lem at hand. /

Hilda Taba (34) studied the thinking process in the context of'social studies and categorized the cognitive skills in three major clusters that she called "cognitive tasks." Cognitive Task I deals with concept forma tion and includes the skills of differentiation, identification of common properties, and de termination of the hierarchical order of items. Cognitive Task II includes the abilities to interpret, infer, and generalize. Cognitive Task III deals with the application of "known principles and facts to explain unfamiliar phenomena or to predict consequences from known conditions" (34, p. 108).

Basic QuestionsOne would be safe to state that in the last

several years cognitive learning has been that aspect of the social studies program receiving most of the attention of the researchers. In addition to the studies designed to define the

March 1969 613

nature of intellectual skills and abilities, re searchers have attempted to answer the fol lowing general questions:

1. What arc the most appropriate concepts and generalizations to be used as the basis for the social studies program''

2. Do children informally achieve more cognitive learnings now than they did several years ago?

3. How effectively can children deal with cognitive learnings and how early'.'

4. What is the best method to develop cognitive learnings?

In regard to the first question, research ers consulted the social scientists in order to determine the basic structural elements of each discipline. Several studies conducted at Stanford University (13) were among the first ones of this type. The literature of the social sciences was thoroughly searched for significant generalizations that were related to basic social functions such as government, conservation, education, production and dis tribution, transportation, recreation, and re ligious and aesthetic expression. Thousands of generalizations were identified through these studies.

Two social scientists (3) made an in ventory of findings in the behavioral and social sciences and published an extensive source of concepts and generalizations along with the evidence supporting them. In this source a social studies teacher can find a number of sound concepts and generaliza tions on which to build a successful instruc tional program relevant to any significant unit topic.

As a first step, most of the national cur riculum projects in social studies education of the past decade attempted to define the cognitive learnings to be used as the skeleton of the program. Social scientists were in vited to present the basic structure of their disciplines and discuss the methods used by social scientists to find evidence, examine it, and reach conclusions. A publication by the Syracuse Project (31) provides a good ex ample of the cognitive learnings selected to serve as the key elements in a K-12 social studies program.

It is interesting to note that so many studies and practically all major social stud ies projects have proposed to identify the "fundamental" concepts and generalizations from the social sciences. As a result, one would expect that the various lists developed by the projects would be quite similar. While there appears to be some agreement, there is not as much agreement as is needed to give teachers the necessary confidence in the new programs.

One study in particular (161 reported that when 14 social scientists were asked to list the five most basic principles, or generali zations, in the social sciences, they produced 14 lists practically all different from one an other. While this is understandable from the point of view of those who have a good grasp of the social sciences, it presents a problem for many teachers who are seeking specific guidance in planning for teaching the social studies.

The second question relates to whether or not present-day children informally ac quire more cognitive learnings than did chil dren of previous generations. One should realize that this question was raised as a re sult of observations that social studies con tent appeared to be oversimplified and below the children's capacity to learn. A number of studies (22. 19. 17. 27) did substantiate these observations by establishing that chil dren knew much of the content included in their programs prior to instruction.

These studies should not be interpreted to mean, however, that children did have an in-depth understanding of the concepts and phenomena included in their programs. In the first place, the superficial nature of the traditional programs themselves did not re quire an in-depth understanding. On the other hand, a number of investigations (35, 12. 10. 18) do show that children left un- guided have difficulty applying higher levels of thinking when confronted with social situations.

The third question consists of two rather important parts. One part deals with the capability of school-age children to use intel lectual skills and abilities effectively in order to develop concepts and generalizations; the

March 1969 615

second part relates to the now famous state ment by Bruner that "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually hon est form to any child at any stage of develop ment" (4, p. 33). This point of view has stimulated a considerable amount of research relating to the process of conceptualization in young children. The work of Piaget has pro vided a basis for much of this research in education and psychology.

There is no doubt that youngsters at the secondary level are capable of applying higher levels of thinking in order to arrive at basic understandings. Massialas and Zevin (21 ), for example, reflecting findings of their own experimentation, speak with a considerable amount of confidence on this matter.

It appears that success in the applica tion of higher levels of thinking requires a classroom atmosphere that stimulates the de velopment of certain qualities in the person ality of students. Reporting on the findings of a related pilot study, Oliver and Shaver point out "that the student who might be characterized as a tough-minded extrovert responded well to perhaps even enjoyed the Socratic discussions, while less outgoing and less aggressive students were more in clined to pursue a subject if exposed to it in the less threatening recitation situation" (25, pp. 309-10).

As far as the elementary school children are concerned, it is again abundantly clear that they can be taught to analyze their social environment thoughtfully and to discover re lationships. A cluster of related studies (2, 7, 11, 14, 30) shows that this is especially true in the upper grades of the elementary school. Some investigations show that chil dren at the primary grade level can deal with cognitive learnings (5, 33); although another study (32) cautions that limitations in chil dren should be recognized and taken into con sideration. These limitations consist of (a) reading difficulties, (b) inability to deal with complex situations, (c) the need for short attention span activities, and (d) the need for very close guidance from the teacher.

The fourth area of concern to current researchers has to do with finding the best method for developing cognitive learnings.

Numerous research efforts have tried to re place the conventional textbook-lecture-dis cussion method of teaching with a variety of reflective methods inspired by the modes of inquiry of the social science disciplines (15, 29, 6, 8). Those studies support the thesis that reflective teaching and learning methods are more successful in terms of knowledge gained by the children and in the develop ment of their critical thinking abilities than the traditional method of teaching social studies. Common terms identifying the new methods are "case study," "in-depth study." "themes approach." "problem solving," "in quiry," and others. Included among the new approaches are those made possible through technology, such as simulation and pro grammed instruction (23. 9, 1).

The term "model" as applied to instruc tional theory is prominent in today's profes sional literature. A variety of inquiry models have been developed to facilitate social stud ies learning. Parsons and Shaftel (26) have classified these models into "categorical" and "strategic" in terms of the degree of open- endcdness that characterized them. Strategic models, placing more emphasis on the process and requiring the child to reach his own conclusions, are more open-ended than the categorical ones that demand that the children search for predetermined conclu sions. According to Parsons and Shaftel. how ever, both types can work to the disadvantage of the development of thinking skills by re stricting children to a rigid method of think ing rather than allowing them to exercise divergent thought processes.

New Approaches NeededThe studies cited in this paper represent

just a few of many that concern themselves with cognitive learning in the social studies. In fact, it appears that concern with the cog nitive domain has dominated the entire thrust of social studies curriculum revision in recent years. A great deal of research attention has been given to the content drawn from the social science disciplines and to methods of instruction growing out of methods of inquiry of the disciplines.

There are those who argue that this trend has gone too far. For example, "The

March 1969 617

monopoly of academic disciplines presently embedded in the curriculum . . ." says Fred Newmann, "tends to preclude from formal education a large number of exciting, though nondisciplined, experiences." He goes on to list fantasy, love, hate, humor, and day dreaming as examples of nondisciplined experiences.

Generally speaking, research in social studies education is a rather recent phe nomenon. As has already been implied in this paper, the cognitive aspects of social studies education have attracted most of the researchers' attention. This does not mean, however, that cognitive learning as it relates to social studies has been adequately investi gated or that the studies conducted represent a coordinated research effort. A great num ber of the studies are doctoral dissertations concerned with rather small and isolated problems.

There is a need for longitudinal studies to investigate the lasting effects of the reflec tive methods of teaching and learning. New instruments must be developed. It is neither enough nor correct to judge the quality of the new programs and methods on the basis of standards and instruments designed to suit the old programs. Also, there is a need to study the effect that affective variables have on cognitive learnings. It is difficult to study any of the domains of the individual in isola tion. This could even be considered to be inappropriate for the social studies educator who is primarily concerned with the indi vidual as a decision maker in his role as a member of the society in which he lives.

References

1. Eugene H. Baker. "A Comparative Study of Textbook and Simulation Approaches in Teaching Junior High School American History." Dissertation Abstracts 24: 3353; April 1967.

2. Edward W Beaubier. "Capacity of Sixth- Grade Children to Understand Social Science Gen eralizations." D issertation Abstracts 23: 2439; January 1963.

3. Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner. Human Behavior: Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964.

4. Jerome S. Bruner. The Process of Edu cation. New York: Vintage Books, 1960.

5. G. Cammarota. "New Emphasis in Social

Studies for the Primary Grades." Sofia? Education 17: 77-80; February 1963.

6. Charlotte Crabtree. "Effects of Structuring on the Productiveness of Children's Thinking." The Journal of Experimental Education 36: 1-13; Fall 1967.

7. O. L. Davis. "Learning About Time Zones in Grades Four, Five, and Six." Journal of Experi mental Education 3 1: 507-12; Summer 1963.

8. Orville N. Dodge. "Generalization and Concept Development as an Instructional Method for 8th Grade History." D issertation Abstracts 27: 1632; December 1966.

9. Irvin J. Farber. "A Study of the Use of Programmed Instruction in a Group Situation." Dissertation Abstracts 26; 1509-10; September 1965.

10 Phineas Goldstein. "Concepts of Land- forms and Waterforms of Children Beginning First Grade." D issertation Abstracts 27: 1199-1212; No vember 1960.

11. Edward L. Greenblatt. "An Exploratory Study of the Development of Selected Generaliza tions in Social Studies." D issertation Abstracts 24: 3640; March 1964.

12. Fred I. Greenstein. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965.

13. Paul R. Hanna and John R. Lee. "Con tent in the Social Studies." Social Studies in Ele mentary Schools. Thirty-Second Yearbook of the National Council for the Social Studies. Washing ton, D.C.: NCSS. 1962. pp. 1162-89.

14. Bruce Joyce and Elizabeth Joyce. "Searching for Strategies for Social Education." The Elementary School Journal 66: 272-83; Febru ary 1968.

15. Bruce Joyce and Carl Weinberg. "Using the Strategies of Sociology in Social Education." Elementary School Journal 64: 265-72; February 1964.

16. Theodore Kaltsounis. "Current Basic Principles in Social Sciences." Education 84: 275-79; January 1964.

17. Theodore Kaltsounis. "A Study Concern ing Third Graders' Knowledge of Social Studies Content Prior to Instruction." Journal of Educa tional Research 5 7: 345-49; March 1964.

18. Bernard G. Kirsch. "An Evaluation of Levels of Cognitive Learning in a Unit of Fifth Grade Social Studies." D issertation Abstracts 28: 541; August 1967.

19. Betty L. Lowry. "A Survey of the Knowl edge of Social Studies Concepts Possessed by Sec ond Grade Children Previous to the Time These Concepts Are Taught in the Social Studies Lessons." Dissertation Abstracts 24: 2324; December 1963.

20. Byron G. Massialas and C. Benjamin Cox. Inquiry in Social Studies. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966. pp. 115-21.

21. Byron G. Massialas and Jack Zevin.

March 1969 619

"Teaching Social Studies Through Discovery." So cial Education 28: 384-87; November 1964.

22. John D. McAulay. "Social Studies in the Primary Grades" Social Education 1 9: 357-58; December 1954.

23. Jerry R. Moore. "An Experiment in Pro grammed Instruction Voting in Iowa, Ninth Grade Civics." D issertation Abstracts 25: 5156-57; March 1965.

24. Fred M. Newmann. "Questioning the Place of Social Science Disciplines in Education." Social Education 3 1 (7): 593-96; November 1967.

25. Donald W. Oliver and James P. Shaver. Teaching Public Issues in the High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966.

26. Theodore W. Parsons and Fannie R. Shaftel. "Thinking and Inquiry: Some Critical Is

sues." In: Jean Fair and Fannie R. Shaftel, editors. Effective Thinking in the Social Studies. 37th Year book of the National Council for the Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1967. pp. 141-47.

27. Orville K. Penner. "A Study of Fourth Grade Children's Knowledge of Selected Social Studies Concepts Prior to Instruction." D issertation Abstracts 28: 403; August 1967.

28. Myles M. Platt. "Concepts and the Cur riculum." Social Education 27: 21; January 1963.

29. Wilma M. Possien. "A Comparison of the Effect of Three Teaching Methodologies on the

Development of the Problem Solving Skills of Sixth Grade Children." D issertation Abstracts 25: 4003; January 1965.

30. James E. Potterfield. "An Analysis of Elementary School Children's Ability to Learn An thropological Content at Grades Four, Five, and Six." Journal of Educational Research 6 1: 297-99; March 1968.

31. Roy A. Price, Warren Hickman, and Gerald Smith. Major Concepts for Social Studies. Syracuse: Social Studies Curriculum Center at Syracuse University, 1965.

32. Mary Rusnak. "Introducing Social Stud ies in the First Grade." Social Education 25: 291- 92; October 1961.

33. Bernard Spodek. "Developing Social Sci ence Concepts in Kindergarten." Social Education 27: 253-57; May 1963.

34. Hilda Taba. Teachers' Handbook for Ele mentary Social Studies. Palo Alto, California: Addi- son-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967. pp. 87-127.

35. Carroll E. Weber. "A Study of Sixth- Grade Children's Ability to Infer the Influence of the Natural Environment Upon Man." Disserta tion A bstracts 25: 4012; January 1965.

THEODORE KALTSOUNIS, Associate Professor of Education, University of Wash ington, Seattle.

THE CADMUS CURRICULUM CHARTRelates

CADMUS BOOKSto Popular

BASIC READERSand Provides

Easy Reference to Find Appropriate

Material ForReading Beyondthe Textbook and

IndividualizedReading

Subject Area CorrelationPersonal Values Correlation

Are Inclvded in SeparateSections of Ike Chart

<S. M. Uolt cud1201 South Hastings Way

Eau Claire, Wiscor-in 54701

March 1969 621

Copyright © 1969 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.