developing preservice and inservice teachers’ pedagogical ...developing preservice and inservice...

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 11 Number 1 73 Spring 2016

Developing Preservice and Inservice Teachers’ Pedagogical Content

Knowledge

in Economics

Cheryl A. Ayers

University Of Virginia

High school student achievement in economics has been predominantly characterized by low test

scores, while secondary social studies preservice teachers have less formal training in economics

than most other social studies disciplines. In this self-study, the instructional affordances and

constraints of an experimental economics methods course are analyzed in terms of developing

secondary social studies preservice and inservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK) in economics from both the instructor and pre and inservice teachers’ perspectives. Two

course assignments appeared to most notably develop PCK in economics, the Analysis of

Economic Events and the Active-Learning, Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson. Findings

suggest interrelationships exist among common content knowledge, specialized content

knowledge, and horizon content knowledge for teaching economics. Implications and

instructional suggestions for social studies teacher education and professional development are

discussed.

Keywords: social studies education, economic education, preservice and inservice

teachers, pedagogical content knowledge, common content knowledge,

specialized content knowledge, horizon content knowledge

Introduction

Nearly half of adults and two-thirds of high school students in the United States do not

understand basic economic concepts (CEE, 1999; Harris Interactive, 2005). Since 1976, most

adult and high school students have earned consistently low scores on the Test for Economic

Literacy, the most commonly administered standardized test in economic education (Miller &

VanFossen, 2008; Schug & Walstad, 1991; Walstad & Rebeck, 2001). These statistics may be

concerning in a democracy heavily dependent on an informed citizenry to make productive

economic decisions not only on a personal level but also on a societal level (VanFossen, 2005;

Walstad, 1998).

Teachers with low levels of economic understanding consistently have students who

learn less economics (Bosshardt & Watts, 1990; Miller & VanFossen, 2008; Watts & Walstad,

2011). Secondary social studies inservice teachers state that economics is the subject for which

they need the most professional development, both in content and pedagogy (Eisenhauer &

Zaporowski, 1994). This problem stems, in part, from less formal training in economics than in

other social studies subject among secondary social studies preservice teachers (Aske, 2003;

Bosshardt & Watts, 2005; Dumas, Evans, & Weible, 1997; Lynch, 1994; Schug, Harrison, &

Clark, 2012). On average, secondary social studies teacher education programs require one

content course in economics for licensure, while the typical social studies methods course

deemphasizes the coverage of economic education to one class session (Joshi & Marri, 2006;

Salemi, Saunders, & Walstad, 1996; VanFossen, 2000; Walstad, 1992). Compounding the


www.socstrp.org


problem, the literature base on how to prepare secondary social studies preservice and inservice

teachers to deliver effective economic instruction is almost silent; therefore, teachers are often

unprepared to teach economics at the secondary level.

The irony of these course and literature deficits is that more states than ever before are

requiring teachers to teach economics at the secondary level (CEE, 2014; NAEP, 2013).

\Currently, 22 states require all high school students to take an economics course to graduate,

and 45 states require economic standards to be implemented (CEE, 2014). The National Council

for the Social Studies (NCSS, 2010) describes social studies education as the “integrated

[emphasis added] study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence” (p.

3). Recently, the NCSS (2013) published its College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework,

advising social studies teachers to utilize an interdisciplinary approach to inquiry-based learning.

This study seeks to better understand how an economic methods course might uniquely prepare

secondary social studies teachers to deliver economic instruction that improves student

achievement in economics and better prepares students for their roles as adult democratic

citizens.

Review of Related Literature

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Education researchers often focus on better understanding what teachers need to know

and be able to do in order to deliver instruction that most effectively promotes student learning

(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Disagreement within the knowledge base for teaching,

however, exists partly because of the highly complex and dynamic nature of teacher knowledge

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Shulman, 1986, 1987). One subset of teacher knowledge research

started in 1986 when Lee Shulman delivered his oft-cited Presidential Address at the American

Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting. To reform education and

professionalize teaching, Shulman insisted teacher knowledge should look differently for each

subject, thereby necessitating subject-specific instructional practices. Shulman called this new

conceptualization pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and defined it as the blend of content

knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that is unique to a particular subject. More specifically,

according to Shulman (1986), PCK includes,

…the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of

representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples,

explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, ways of representing and formulating the

subject that make it comprehensible to others. (p. 9)

Since then, education scholars in various subjects have refined and elaborated Shulman’s

original conception of PCK (e.g., Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,

1999; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Yet, despite these variations, a basic premise of PCK continues

to suggest that teachers who have adequate content knowledge in a discipline are not necessarily

equipped to deliver effective instruction in a way that translates into student learning. Somewhat

to blame is the frequent disconnect between preservice teachers’ coursework in content courses

and education courses commonly taught by different departments whose collaboration efforts are

minimal at best (Levine, 2006; Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy, 2010). Consequently, preservice

teachers are not given the opportunity to learn the PCK necessary for effective instruction

(Feiman-Nemser, 2001).

Content knowledge is still important, especially in the context of its interdependent and

interactive relationship with pedagogical knowledge in developing PCK. Three distinct domains


www.socstrp.org


of content knowledge for teaching are identified by Ball et al. (2008): common content

knowledge, specialized content knowledge, and horizon content knowledge. Common content

knowledge includes knowledge and skills needed outside the teaching profession. In the case of

economics, for example, ordinary citizens should understand that weighing costs and benefits

leads to improved decision making. Conversely, specialized content knowledge includes the

knowledge and skills required specifically by teachers to support student learning. In keeping

with the economic example, economic teachers should be able to anticipate and remedy common

student misconceptions, such as the belief that costs only refer to monetary values (Schug &

Baumann, 1991). Horizon content knowledge requires teachers to know how subject-specific

topics are related to students’ Kindergarten-12 experiences across grades and subjects. For

instance, Economics teachers, for example, need to understand that the concept of opportunity

cost learned in elementary grades is a building block for more complex economic concepts

learned in secondary grades such as production possibilities frontier and comparative advantage.

Content knowledge has also been divided into declarative and procedural knowledge

(Miller & VanFossen, 1994; Wineburg, 1990). Declarative knowledge encompasses the facts,

concepts, and principles within a particular discipline. Procedural knowledge, by contrast,

includes the knowledge and skills needed to apply declarative knowledge in a way that increases

understanding and solves novel problem scenarios. In economics, procedural knowledge is what

often separates experts from novices in solving real-world problem scenarios (VanFossen, 1996;

VanSickle, 1992). In sum, teachers should understand what counts as knowledge in a particular

subject in order to deliver effective instruction (Ball & McDiarmid, 1990).

Research on Developing PCK in Social Studies

Research focused on developing PCK in secondary social studies preservice teachers

mostly centers on historical thinking instruction, and these preservice teachers often graduate

with different competence levels of disciplinary understanding, even upon graduating from the

same teacher education program (e.g., Monte-Sano, 2011; Salinas, Bellows, & Liaw, 2011;

Waring & Torrez, 2010). Few PCK studies in economic education have been conducted besides

one study that used technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), an extension of the

PCK construct, to examine inservice teachers’ economic instruction utilizing podcasting

technology (Swan & Hofer, 2011). On a more positive note, several articles have been published

that begin a dialogue about the teacher knowledge needed by secondary social studies preservice

teachers to be well equipped to teach economics as an integral part of the social studies

curriculum and about the challenges of an economic methods course (Joshi, 2003; Joshi & Marri,

2006; Weidenaar, 1980). However, little to no research has been conducted that examines how

PCK in economics is developed in secondary social studies pre/inservice teachers (Joshi &

Marri, 2006). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of how

teacher educators might better develop secondary social studies pre/inservice teachers’ PCK in

economics.

Research on Economic Reasoning and Interdisciplinary Instruction

One possible explanation for why high school students typically graduate with subpar

levels of economic knowledge and skills is the pervasiveness of teacher-centered instructional

practices in economics (Becker & Watts, 2001; Wentworth, 1987). A de-emphasis on economic

reasoning instruction often exists despite the widespread agreement among economic educators

that a major goal of high school economic instruction should be to teach students to apply

economic concepts and principles to real world events. This application of economic content has


www.socstrp.org


the potential to sharpen students’ analytical and decision making skills (Schug & Western, 1990;

VanFossen, 2000; Wentworth, 1987), including the ability to think critically about key economic

issues such as poverty (Otlin, 2008).

Economic educators recommend that students are afforded frequent learning

opportunities to practice economic reasoning skills requiring the application of basic economic

concepts and principles, similar to the way in which mathematics students practice basic

algebraic formulas (Wentworth, 1987). The Economic Way of Thinking (EWT), for example,

also known as “thinking like an economist,” is designed to develop disciplinary-specific

reasoning skills by using the following six economic principles upon which most economists

agree (CEE, 2000; Wentworth, 1987; Wentworth & Schug, 1993):

1. People choose.

2. All choices involve costs.

3. People respond to incentives in predictable ways.

4. Economic systems influence individual choices and incentives.

5. Voluntary trade creates wealth.

6. The consequences of choices lie in the future.

These six economic principles construct a unique lens designed to make sense of complex

economic events and issues that sometimes seem at odds with what common sense would

ordinarily suggest. Using the EWT to better understand current events has the potential to

generate more informed and productive decision making cognizant of the long-term

consequences imposed on the lives of individuals and society at large. The ability to critically

analyze economic issues and policies from multiple perspectives then articulate an argument

grounded in economic concepts and principles should also be an important outcome of economic

reasoning instruction (Davies, 2006).

Another possible contributing factor to historically low student achievement in economics is the

incomplete and often inaccurate integration of economic concepts into other social studies

subjects (Buckles & Watts, 1998). Due in part to social studies preservice teachers’ limited

coursework in economics, Joseph Eisenhauer and Mark Zaporowski (1994) found that, on

average, interdisciplinary social studies inservice teachers indicated they had difficulty teaching

42% of the economic content outlined in their course syllabi. Three-fourths of these same

teachers specified the need for professional development programs in economics. In contrast to

the findings that the integration approach to economic instruction is often unreliable and

ineffective (Becker, Greene, & Rosen, 1990; Miller & VanFossen, 2008), some evidence exists

that integrated economic instruction is better than none at all. For example, Mark Schug and

Scott Niederjohn (2008) reported significant gains in economic achievement in U.S. history

classes when teachers incorporated explicit economic instruction with non-economic content

rather than merely mentioning economics as somewhat of an afterthought or side note. Also

promising, after reviewing domain-specific literature related to economic education, Watts

(2005) concluded economics can be integrated effectively in other social studies subjects if

enough accurate, context-specific economic examples are included during instruction. Taken

together, these inferences suggest there is potential for successful integration of economics in

other social studies subjects if the instruction is delivered under the right circumstances and by

skilled teachers (Schug, Harrison, & Clark, 2012). The research question guiding this study was

What are the instructional affordances and constraints of an economic methods course in terms


www.socstrp.org


of developing secondary social studies pre/inservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK) in economics from both the instructor and pre/inservice teachers’ perspectives?

Method The data collected in this self-study come from an economic methods course called

“Economics for Educators,” which I created as an experimental course and taught during the Fall

2012 semester at a southeastern university. Of the 11pre and inservice teachers enrolled in the

course, seven were undergraduate students and four were graduate students. Five students were

female, six were male, and all were between the ages of 20 and early 40s. Three students self-

identified as African-American, one student as Asian-American, one student as Hispanic, and the

remaining six students as White. All were enrolled in the university’s secondary social studies

teacher education program; however, one student had already completed her student teaching

practicum and had practiced as a high school social studies teacher for three years. Five of the

11 students had completed one or two courses in economic content at the undergraduate level.

Two students chose not to participate in the study, and another student never scheduled an

appointment to be interviewed. As the instructor of the course, I had 10 years of previous

experience in delivering teacher education and professional development programs as well as

three-credit, graduate-level courses in economic education to Kindergarten-12 social studies

pre/inservice teachers.

Because the course was approved as a content course in economics, approximately 80%

of class time was devoted to teaching economic content and 20%was focused on teaching PCK

in economics. The state’s standards in economics and the Council for Economic Education’s

(CEE, 2011a) Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics guided the breadth and depth

of microeconomic, macroeconomic, and international economic content coverage to maximize

students’ marketability and mobility as future teachers. The primary text used for the economic

content portion of the course was Essentials of Economics, 8th edition (Schiller, 2011), and the

main teaching resources were Virtual Economics 4.0 CD-ROM (CEE, 2011b) and the Economics

and Personal Finance Resources for K-12 website (CEE, 2013).

Self-studies of instructional practices (Dinkelman, 2003; Faikhamta & Clarke, 2013;

Feldman, 2003; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2014; Peercy, 2014; Ragoonaden, 2015) are offering

evidence-based solutions for education reform (Zeichner, 2007). To collect accurate data, all

student work in my study was either posted on Blackboard Learn™ and then saved electronically

on my computer or submitted in hard copy form, photocopied, then stored in a filing cabinet. A

pre and post-survey was used to measure changes in economic attitudes and was administered at

the beginning and end of the course. Midway through the course, I asked the participants to

evaluate the course by answering the following two open-ended questions: What’s working?

What are your suggestions for change? In addition to the university’s end-of-course evaluation, I

also administered my own more detailed course evaluation on the last day of class to collect

participants’ perspectives regarding each of the graded assignments, among other course

components. Additionally, I recorded reflective and analytical insights in the form of researcher

memos during and after class sessions (Maxwell, 2013).

Meaningful self-studies require the researcher to intentionally collect data from

participants and other actors linked to the study to challenge his or her own assumptions with the

interpretations of others, thus increasing the validity of the findings by triangulating the data

collected (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Therefore, I received feedback

from a professor in the same department who observed two class sessions, after which debriefing


www.socstrp.org


meetings were held. To further challenge my assumptions and interpretations, semi-structured

interviews were scheduled about one month after the course ended with eight of the students to

gain a more in-depth, nuanced understanding of how the students experienced the course and

assignments. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed (see Appendix A for the interview

protocol). Upon further critical reflection after the course ended, I revised the course syllabus

and assignments to improve the course for the following year.

Analysis was guided by initial coding of the data to form descriptive and interpretive

codes which were eventually collapsed into categories then themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

These themes facilitated sense making of the data and developed propositions that, while

inherently personal and situation-specific in any self-study, have the potential to prompt readers

to generate their own “naturalistic generalizations” (Stake, 1995, p. 85) as they reflect on their

own teacher education and professional development practices and to consider delivering a

similar course to better prepare teachers for effective economic instruction. Data triangulation

among my instructor/researcher memos, student work, student pre and post-survey, student pre

and post-test, three course evaluations, and student interviews was sought to gain a deeper, more

refined understanding of how PCK in economics was and was not developed in the course

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).

Findings

Economic content was taught predominantly by modeling active-learning economic

lessons from Virtual Economics that were often appropriate for replication with high school

students; one way in which I attempted to develop teachers’ PCK in economics. Because many

social studies teacher educators do not have enough content knowledge in economics to teach an

economic methods course that also counts as a content course in economics, I chose to focus

here on two assignments instead, both of which are relatively easy to implement. These two

assignments emerged as major themes from the data whereby PCK in economics appeared to

most notably develop in the teachers: the Analysis of Economic Events and the Active-Learning,

Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson.

Analysis of Economic Events Assignment

The Analysis of Economic Events assignment was designed to reinforce economic

concepts and principles as well as develop economic reasoning skills, that is, increase both

declarative and procedural content knowledge. The assignment also simultaneously taught

participants a specific instructional strategy unique to economics called the EWT, thereby

attempting to further develop their PCK in economics. Each analysis was scaffolded by 12

questions that required participants to think critically about an economic news event on a variety

of levels such as stating a compromise between multiple perspectives and discussing how the

economic news personally impacted the lives of their future high school students. The emphasis

of the assignment was, however, on using the EWT to help make better sense of the economic

news articles (see Appendix B for the analysis form).

Despite what I thought was a thorough introduction to the EWT, most participants

struggled to provide depth of analysis on the first two assignments. By the end of the course,

however, the average grade for the class across all three assignments was an 87%. The pre and

post-survey item with the second highest percentage change at almost 42% was Item #11, which

stated, “I use basic economic concepts to analyze economic events in the news.” Further

triangulating the data, questions on my end-of-course evaluation asked participants to agree or

disagree with five statements derived from the course objectives listed in the syllabus. All


www.socstrp.org


circled “agree” for the second statement that read, “I am able to analyze economic events using

the ‘Economic Way of Thinking’ from multiple perspectives in order to make more informed,

productive decisions as a consumer, worker, and voting citizen.”

Despite the amount of practice it took for participants to demonstrate competence in

applying the EWT, they agreed that this systematic form of economic reasoning added real-

world relevance to economic instruction and was essential for making sense of daily economic

news that, at first glance, seemed overly complicated. Supporting evidence was found in the

interviews. One interviewee stated

I think that the six principles are really helpful in breaking down the economics in the

news. Specifically…you have to take a moment to step back and to think: What is this?

What is the cost? What are people choosing? What are the benefits? In going through

the six steps, you see how it plays out. It allows you to see how economics is interwoven

into our everyday life.

Another interviewee said

I like the analysis of the events a lot because I thought that was really a great thing to do

with your students, as well…. always that sort of current event requirement. I’d never

really seen it used very effectively,…[only] writing a paragraph about it, but I think the

[Analysis of Economic Events assignment] could be a way to do that effectively and

really get them to understand something.

A third interviewee stated

[The EWT] helps you with things you don’t really understand. It gives you a way to

analyze them step by step and come to a better understanding at the end.

In addition to better understanding the world in which they live, the participants also

claimed this process of economic reasoning prepares secondary students for democratic

citizenship “…because they are involved in a society that operates on voting and voting only

works with a populace…that is informed.” The basic tenants of the EWT appeared to give the

participants the means by which to formulate and cogently articulate their economic opinions as

well as to better understand political debates, thus hopefully cast a more informed vote. During

the interviews, one preservice teacher stated,

Being able to break down economic news that you see by using those six principles

allows you to better understand what [politicians are] trying to say and if it really makes

sense in your perspective. It allows you to interpret better [and]…better voice your

opinions about it.

Most of the participants acknowledged the broad applicability of the EWT and the

potential for interdisciplinary instruction by making claims in the interviews such as, “I’d want

to include [the EWT] in a bunch of different classes” and “You can use [the EWT] for

everything…and [it] helps you understand why people make the choices that they make.” The

participants’ newfound connection between the EWT and other subjects provided a glimpse into

the early stages of developing horizon content knowledge, as the following quote illustrates:

“The [EWT] principles are simple but comprehensive and easily applicable…[and] can be used

to explain and understand events and decisions involving history, geography, sociology, even

psychology.” Finally, teaching high school students to use economic reasoning skills, instead of

just memorizing economic concepts, was an important educational goal shared by a participant:

I think our main goal is to teach kids how to think, and [the EWT] helps them in a

systematic way to think about things and take their own personal views out of it to an


www.socstrp.org


extent and look at things more logically, which is something I want all people to be able

to do.

Active-Learning, Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson Assignment

Midway through the course, the participants were given the opportunity to demonstrate

their own PCK in economics with an emphasis on developing horizon content knowledge. This

assignment was designed to give them practice in writing and demonstrating an active-learning

via an interdisciplinary economic lesson. By applying what they learned about economic content

and pedagogy, groups of approximately three participants wrote 45-minute lesson plans that

taught economic concepts in a way that incorporated another social studies subject as well as

demonstrated an active-learning instructional strategy. Participants then demonstrated the

lessons in class and completed a personal essay reflecting on the lesson writing and delivery

processes. To aid the reflection exercise, demonstrations were videotaped and later privately

viewed and evaluated by the participants according to the established demonstration performance

criteria. Whole-class discussions were held after each demonstration during which other

participants and I shared both positive and constructive feedback. The lesson-writing portion of

the assignment was scaffolded by allowing the participants to tweak published lessons on Virtual

Economics as long as at least 50% of their lesson was original (see Appendix C for lesson

descriptions).

Findings were mixed in regard to PCK in economics, as observed in lesson

demonstrations. All groups exhibited the ability to integrate economics and active-learning

strategies, which was especially impressive for the three groups—Groups 1, 3, and 4—whose

lesson plans were completely original. One group used a cotton production simulation to

generate excitement and a sense of competition between the two groups of “cotton producers,”

while infusing realistic variables that commonly influence production. Examples of economic

content that related to the lives of most high school students also were used. After the

participants simulated the economic growth of a city during the Industrial Revolution, for

example, they discussed the economic reasons for constructing local roads surrounding the

university and nearby city. In the economic and sociology lesson, participants converted the

average price of slaves during the Transatlantic Slave Trade into today’s dollars and compared it

with the price of a modern-day car.

The most obvious way in which the participants were weak in demonstrating PCK in

economics was in the actual process of infusing economic content into other social studies

subjects. Explicit connections between economic concepts and the other social studies concepts

were rarely made, and those connections made often seemed unplanned. In the geography

lesson, for example, the discussion of supply and demand concepts was in isolation, despite a

follow-up with a geography role-play activity having clear implications for understanding supply

and demand. Similarly, the economic concepts featured in the Industrial Revolution simulation

were supposed to be discovered inductively at the end of the simulation, but the participants

never specifically mentioned the economic concepts during the simulation debriefing. All five

lessons, however, contained potentially effective economic content integration. I judged that the

participants just needed to take time to be more thoughtful in making the economic concept

connections overt in both their written lesson plans and lesson demonstrations. The inservice

social studies teacher who had already taught economics reached the same conclusion in her

personal reflection essay when she wrote,


www.socstrp.org


The thing I want to do to improve my lesson writing is to think more about what

interdisciplinary concepts I can include in my lessons. That is, I am going to actively

seek out the opportunities for including interdisciplinary concepts in my lessons instead

of only including them when they jump out at me.

The degree to which the participants were successful in demonstrating their

interdisciplinary knowledge—that is, horizon content knowledge—sometimes depended on their

level of common content knowledge in other social studies subjects. One preservice teacher

commented in his personal reflection essay that integrating economics and geography was

“…harder than I thought it would be, granted geography is not one of my specialties, something I

should work on.” This same preservice teacher shared similar concerns in the interview when he

said that “some subjects will be easier than others” in terms of integrating economic content.

Further corroborating this finding were three pre/inservice teachers who had extensive

coursework in the social studies subject in which they integrated economics. In their personal

reflection essays, these pre/inservice teachers talked about the ease with which they integrated

economics. The preservice teacher who completed sociology coursework at the Master’s degree

level stated,

The [part] that I think we did a great job on was the integration between sociology and

economics. We used hardcore theory in both disciplines to explain the slave trade. The

lesson really focused on using economics to explain the motivation behind the slave

trade. By chunking the lesson into factors of production then supply and demand basics,

we developed the economic concepts within the lecture on the slave trade. In fact, it was

this integration of sociology and economics that others gave us high scores on.

Another preservice teacher with a background in political science said, “The integration…was

one of the easiest parts since government and economics are so intrinsically linked. This made it

exceptionally easy to incorporate them into the assignments and presentation.”

Just getting started was a problem for some groups who had never even considered

economic integration possibilities, as one preservice teacher commented in her personal

reflection essay: “Picking a subject that was not economics in order to teach economics was a

hard concept for me. At first I did not see how this was possible.” Related to history, another

preservice teacher claimed after the assignment was completed,

I was really surprised to see how many economic situations were easily describable

throughout various points in history that I had never given any thought to. Clearly

economics plays a huge role in several aspects in social studies, but without it ever being

pointed out to me as a student, I never even considered it.

Finally, it is likely that practice with economic integration is important, as the inservice teacher

who had already taught other social studies subjects commented in her personal reflection essay:

I think I could use more instruction and practice with including economic concepts into

lessons for other classes. As someone who has taught the other [social studies] subjects, I

struggled with integrating economics without losing any of the content I needed to

teach…

This assignment was most often cited as the best part of the course, in both course

evaluations and interviews. By the end of the course, participants admitted to not previously

realizing how important and broadly applicable economics is to understanding other social

studies subjects, much less just “how many integration opportunities there were” based on their

newfound realization that “…economics applies to all of life and so many different concepts.”


www.socstrp.org


The assignment seemed to develop some degree of horizon content knowledge in the

participants, as the following interview response suggests: “[In] every single discipline, you can

turn to economics and explain some of the motivating factors for why this was done and why this

wasn’t done.” Another related response was:

To understand American and world history, including why wars broke out or why

something else happened, you have to understand the econ behind it. What’s the saying?

War’s always over religion or money, so...I think not only does [the economics-history

integrated lesson] give students an insight into economics, but it lets them further

understand the history concepts you’re trying to teach them, too.

In her personal reflection essay, one preservice teacher wrote about her experiences in finding an

interconnected instructional relationship between economics and history: “I felt that it really

brought together what could’ve been considered two separate lessons on economics and history

into an easily understandable activity that really encompassed the presented concepts for both

disciplines.”

This assignment not only seemed to sharpen PCK in writing and demonstrating active-

learning instructional strategies uniquely geared toward economics, but based on some course

evaluations and interviews, the assignment also synergistically increased the participants’

common content knowledge in economics. The inservice teacher, for example, who had

completed two separate semesters of economics—microeconomics and macroeconomics—in her

undergraduate program and had taught economics at the high school level, came to the following

realization:

[It was] weird for me… because I had taught [economics] before but really didn’t

understand what I had been teaching, and some things I wasn’t teaching right and really

didn’t get. I definitely feel like I understand not only the content more, but ways to teach

it better and make it make more sense.

A similar sentiment was concisely expressed when another preservice teacher wrote, “The

easiest way to learn something is to teach it.”

The participants’ perceptions of their abilities to present active-learning, interdisciplinary

economic lessons at the end of the course appeared to be mostly positive, as evidenced on my

end-of-course evaluation. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “I am able to

present an active-learning, interdisciplinary economic lesson in preparation for integrating

similar lessons into the social studies curricula as a teacher,” nine participants agreed, one left it

blank, and one disagreed. The preservice teacher who disagreed decided not to go into the

teaching profession.

Discussion

This self-study set out to better understand the affordances and constraints of an

economic methods course in developing secondary social studies pre and inservice teachers’

PCK in economics. One inherent component of PCK is common content knowledge, which

appears to have increased as a result of my and the participants’ economic lesson demonstrations

and EWT assignments. Gaining specialized and horizon content knowledge of how to teach

economics simultaneously helped the participants gain common content knowledge in

economics, as evidenced in assignments, course evaluations, and interviews.

By combining both economic content and pedagogy, the Active-Learning,

Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson assignment appeared to be one of the most influential

contributors to developing these participants’ PCK in economics. Evidence existed via


www.socstrp.org


observations, peer feedback, and self-evaluations that the participants were successful in

executing active-learning strategies and including economic examples, both important elements

in delivering effective interdisciplinary economic instruction (Schug & Niederjohn, 2008; Watts,

2005). The participants needed to be more thoughtful in making the interdisciplinary content

connections more explicit during instruction.

The lesson demonstrations also allowed other participants to experience economic

instruction as high school students might, affording them opportunities to recognize and discuss

potential student misconceptions and instructional remedies. Consequently, I submit that these

experiential learning components of the course are important in developing PCK in economics.

During and after these lesson demonstrations, whole-class discussions of examples of economic

content related to current events and the everyday lives of high school students provided further

opportunities to develop PCK in economics. In some ways, these lesson demonstrations were

similar to written cases studies of instructional practices some teacher education scholars claim

are important to analyze in order to develop PCK (e.g., Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, &

Shulman, 2002; Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2008; Shulman, 1987).

Even though the participants demonstrated an ability to provide interdisciplinary

economic instruction, they all struggled to get started. This initial hurdle has implications for

other teachers who may experience the same frustrations, especially if they were not given

opportunities to practice integration strategies in their teacher education programs: a reason,

perhaps, why interdisciplinary economic instruction is often documented as ineffective (Miller &

VanFossen, 2008). Therefore, I posit that interdisciplinary economic instruction and practice

should be staples in social studies methods courses, especially because the NCSS defines social

studies as an integrated study of multiple social sciences and the new C3 Framework insists on

interdisciplinary learning across all social studies subjects. Such interdisciplinary economic

instruction is particularly important in the 28 states that currently do not require an economic

course for high school graduation (CEE, 2014).

Just as making interdisciplinary connections between economics and other social studies

subjects was initially difficult, the EWT was not intuitive to the pre/inservice teachers in ways

similar to how Wineburg (1999) describes historical thinking as unnatural; yet all the more

reason to include such assignments in social studies methods courses and professional

development programs. A 21st century education requires critical thinking and reasoning skills

to engage in real-world, authentic tasks (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993; Preus, 2012) if informed

and prosperous citizenship is to remain a primary goal of U.S. public schools. The EWT is a

critical component in teaching high school students these skills in economics. From an

instructional standpoint, the EWT is a tool through which to also answer NCSS’s call for more

social studies authentic instruction, which includes teaching students to make informed decisions

(NCSS, 2010) and productively engage in discussions about controversial issues (Hess, 2002;

Kelly, 1986). The EWT is a form of procedural knowledge unique to the study of economics,

thus the Analysis of Economic Events assignment has the potential to impact the development of

teachers’ PCK in economics, with the added benefit of reinforcing content and shaping teacher

orientations to include correct disciplinary understanding.

Finally, two limitations of this study need to be addressed. The first limitation is the

small sample size of nine teachers. While often necessary for qualitative studies in education

because of complex and nuanced teaching environments, such a small sample size generates

findings that are highly contextualized and thus reduces the degree to which the findings are


www.socstrp.org


transferable (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The second limitation is my researcher bias (Maxwell,

2013) that existed because I was both the instructor and the researcher, although inherent in self-

study research. Consequently, the participants may have felt obligated to provide positive

feedback, especially during the interviews, even though proper anonymity safeguards were in

place and the interviews occurred after the course ended and final course grades were submitted.

Conclusion

I hope that this study continues the conversations started by Joshi and Marri (2006) and

others about the need for secondary social studies teacher education and professional

development programs to better prepare pre and inservice teachers to deliver economic

instruction that reverses the historically low student achievement scores in economics. For

secondary students to be prepared for democratic citizenship, they must learn economics from

teachers who have PCK in economics. The course affordances and constraints discussed in this

study will hopefully serve as a springboard for teacher educators to implement similar economic

instructional practices and assignments in the future. Succinctly making the case for economic

education, the inservice teacher in this study concluded,

I think most people turn to the news to be informed about what’s going on in the world

and things like that, so if you can’t read a newspaper article and understand the

economics of what’s going on, how can you have a really deep understanding of what’s

going on in the world?

References

Aske, D. (2003). How prepared are prospective high school social studies teachers to infuse

economics in social studies courses? Journal of Social Studies Research, 27(1), 23-23.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes

it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.

Becker, W. E., Greene, & Rosen, S. (1990). Research on high school economic education.

Journal of Economic Education, 21(3), 231-245.

Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (2001). Teaching economics at the start of the 21st century: Still

chalk-and-talk. New Research in Economic Education, 91(2), 446-451.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Bosshardt, W., & Watts, M. (1990). Instructor effects and their determinants in precollege

economic education. Journal of Economic Education, 21(3), 265-76.

Bosshardt, W., & Watts, M. (2005). Teachers' undergraduate coursework in economics in the

baccalaureate and beyond longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Education, 36(4),

400-406.

Buckles, S., & Watts, M. (1998). National standards in economics, history, social studies, civics,

and geography: Complementarities, competition, or peaceful coexistence? Journal of

Economic Education, 29(2), 157-166.

Council on Economic Education (CEE). (2000). The great economic mystery book: A guide to

teaching economic reasoning in grades 9-12. New York, NY: The Economics America

and Economics International Programs.

Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2011b). Virtual Economics 4.0 (CD-ROM). New York,

NY: Council for Economic Education.


www.socstrp.org


Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:

What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Davies, P. (2006). Educating citizens for changing economies. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

38(1), 15-30.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In

N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.,

pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and end tool for promoting

reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-19.

Dumas, W., Evans, S., & Weible, T. (1997). Minimum state standards for secondary social

studies teacher licensure: A national update. The Social Studies, 88(4), 163-166.

Eisenhauer, J. G., & Zaporowski, M. P. (1994). Cross-disciplinary teaching in high school

economics. Social Education, 58(4), 226-229.

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 247-

262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Faikhamta, C. C., & Clarke, A. (2013). A self-study of a Thai teacher educator developing a

better understanding of PCK for teaching about teaching science. Research in Science

Education, 43(3), 955-979.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen

and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Feldman, A. (2003). Validity and quality in self-study. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 26-28.

Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2014). Self-study of teacher education practices as a pedagogy

for teacher educator professional development. Advances in Research on Teaching, 22, 137-152.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Shulman, L. (2002, April 10-14). Toward expert thinking:

How case-writing contributes to the development of theory-based professional knowledge in

student-teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Seattle, WA.

Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies

classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education,

30(1), 10-41.

Joshi, P. (2003). Making space: The economics methods course within social studies education.

The International Social Studies Forum, 3(1), 297-301.

Joshi, P., & Marri, A. R. (2006). An economics methods course? Challenges of teaching

economics education methods course for secondary social studies preservice teachers.

The Social Studies, 97(5), 197-202.

Kelly, T. E. (1986). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher’s role.

Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 113-138.

Lynch, G. (1994). High school economics: Separate course vs. the infusion approach.

International Journal of Social Education, 8(3), 59-69.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical

content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),

Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for

science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.


www.socstrp.org


Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los

Angeles, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (1994). Assessing expertise in economic problem solving: A

model. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22(3), 380-412.

Miller, S. L., & VanFossen, P. J. (2008). Recent research on the teaching and learning of pre-

collegiate economics. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in

social studies education (pp. 284-304). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,

108(6), 1017–1054.

Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Learning to open up history for students: Preservice teachers’ emerging

pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 260-272.

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2010). National curriculum standards for

social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment. Silver Spring, MD:

National Council for the Social Studies.

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). Social studies for the next generation:

Purposes, practices, and implications of the college, career, and civic life (C3)

framework for the social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for

the Social Studies.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational

Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.

Otlin, J. (2008). The causes of poverty: Thinking critically about a key economic issue. Social

Education, 72(2), 75-79.

Peercy, M. M. (2014). Challenges in enacting core practices in language teacher education: A

self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 10(2), 146-162.

Preus, B. (2012). Authentic instruction for 21st century learning: Higher order thinking in an

inclusive school. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 59-79.

Ragoonaden, K. (2015). Self-study of teacher education practices and critical pedagogy: The

fifth moment in a teacher educator's journey. Studying Teacher Education: Journal of

Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 11(1), 81-95.

Salemi, M., Saunders, P., & Walstad, W. (1996). Teacher training programs in economics: Past,

present, and future. American Economic Review, 86(2), 460-464.

Salinas, C., Bellows, M. E., & Liaw, H. L. (2011). Preservice social studies teachers’ historical

thinking and digitized primary sources: What they use and why. Contemporary Issues in

Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 184-204.

Schiller, B. R. (2011). Essentials of economics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Schug, M. C., & Niederjohn, M. S. (2008). Can students learn economics in U. S. history? The

Journal of Private Enterprise, 23(2), 167-176.

Schug, M. C., & Walstad, W. B. (1991). Teaching and learning economics. In J. Shaver (Ed.),

Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 411-419). New York,

NY: MacMillan Reference Books.

Schug, M. C., & Western, R. D. (1990). The unexpected pleasure of teaching high school

economics. Social Education, 54(2), 77.


www.socstrp.org


Schug, M. C., Harrison, A. S., Clark, J. R. (2012). All we know that may be so in economic

education. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(1), 1-8.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(4), 4-14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swan, K., & Hofer, M. (2011). In search of technological pedagogical content knowledge:

Teachers’ initial foray into podcasting in economics. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 44(1), 75-98.

Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects.

Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464-476.

VanFossen, P. J. (1996). Relevant indicators of relative expertise in economic problem-solving:

A factor analysis. Educational Resources Information Center. ERIC Document number

388 572.

VanFossen, P. J. (2000). Teachers’ rationales for high school economics. Theory and Research

in Social Education, 28(3), 391-410.

VanFossen, P. J. (2005). Economic concepts at the heart of civic education. International

Journal of Social Education, 20(2), 35-66.

VanSickle, R. L (1992). Learning to reason with economics. Journal of Economic Education,

23(1), 56-64.

Walstad, W. B. (1992). Economics instruction in high schools. Journal of Economic Literature,

30(4), 2019-2051.

Walstad, W. B., & Rebeck, K. (2001). Assessing the economic understanding of U.S. high

school students. American Economic Review, 91(2), 452-457.

Waring, S. M., & Torrez, C. (2010). Using digital primary sources to teach historical perspective

to preservice teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,

10(3), 294-308.

Watts, M. (2005). What works: A review of research on outcomes and effective program delivery

in precollege economic education. New York, NY: National Council on Economic

Education.

Watts, M., & Walstad, W. B. (2011). What research tells us about teaching high school

economics. In M.C. Schug & W.C. Wood (Eds.), Teaching economics in troubled times:

Theory and practice for secondary social studies (pp. 200-212). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Wentworth, D. R. (1987). Economic reasoning: Turning myth into reality. Theory Into Practice,

26(3), 170-175.

Wentworth, D. R., & Schug, M. C. (1993). Fate vs. choices: What economic reasoning can

contribute to social studies. Social Studies, 84(1), 27-31.

Wineburg, S. (1990). Historical problem-solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the

evaluation of documentary evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford

University, Palo Alto, CA.

Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 488-499.

Zeichner, K. M. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36-46.


www.socstrp.org


Web-based References

Council on Economic Education (CEE). (1999). Results of the survey of economic literacy.

Retrieved from http://herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/education/

sponsored/literacy.html#TEL

Council on Economic Education (CEE). (2011a). Voluntary National Content Standards in

Economics. Retrieved from http://www.councilforeconed.org/resource/voluntary-

national-content-standards-in-economics/

Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2013). Economics and personal finance resources for

K-12. Retrieved from http://www.econedlink.org/

Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2014). Survey of the states: Economic and personal

finance education in our nation’s schools, 2014. Retrieved from

http://www.councilforeconed.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014-Survey-of-the-

States.pdf

Harris Interactive. (2005). What American teens and adults know about economics. Retrieved

from http://www.vietnetlinks.com/thuvien/WhatAmericansKnowAboutEconomics_

042605-3.pdf

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Education Schools Project. Retrieved from

http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2013). The nation’s report card:

Economics 2012. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/

main2012/2013453.aspx

Walstad, W. (1998). Why it’s important to understand economics. The Region, Federal Reserve

Bank of Minneapolis, Retrieved from http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_

papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3582

http://herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/education/%20sponsored/

http://herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/education/%20sponsored/

http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_%20papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3582

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_%20papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3582


www.socstrp.org


Appendix A

Interview Protocol

1. How do you define economics?

2. Do you believe that understanding economics is important for high school students? Adults?

Why or why not?

3. Do you think public schools should require students to learn more economics? Why or why

not?

4. Do the six principles of the “economic way of thinking” help you make better sense of the

world in general? Economic events featured in the news in particular? Why or why not?

5. Do you feel like you have enough economic content knowledge after taking this course to

teach economics at the high school level? Explain.

6. Do you feel like you have enough economic instructional resources after taking this course to

teach economics at the high school level? Explain.

7. Do you feel like you will be able to effectively utilize active-learning instructional strategies

after taking this course to interest high school students in economics? Explain.

8. Do you feel like you will be able to effectively integrate economic concepts into other social

studies subjects? Why or why not?

9. How will you go about making economics interesting to your high school students?

10. Do you believe that it is important for teachers to not unduly influence students’ political

beliefs about the free market vs. government control debate?

11. What concerns do you have about teaching high school economics, if any?

12. Did you enjoy the course format in terms of mixing content and pedagogy? Explain.

13. Do you think the assignments were effective in learning economics? Explain.

14. What things did you enjoy most about the course?

15. What are your suggestions for improving the course?


www.socstrp.org


Appendix B

Analysis Form

Analysis of Economic Events

Applying the Economic Way of Thinking

After finding a news article from a reliable news source, please fill in the identifying information

below and answer the questions that follow in order to practice the economic way of thinking to

make more informed and productive decisions for yourself and society at large.

Article Name

News Source Date

1. How would you summarize the news article in approximately 5 sentences?

2. How does the news article pertain to microeconomics, macroeconomics, and/or international

economics?

3. Which economic concepts are featured?

4. What interdisciplinary (i.e., other social studies subjects) and/or multidisciplinary (i.e., other

academic subjects such as science and math) concepts are featured?

5. List and explain ALL 6 principles of the economic way of thinking in a way that helps

explain the news article. **Give this part of the analysis special attention.**

6. What additional information would be helpful?

7. What do you predict will happen in the short-term? Long-term?

8. What is your personal position on the issue and recommended course of action in the future?

9. What comprise might need to take place between the multiple perspectives?

10. What policy reform recommendations do you have?

11. How is this economic event relevant to your personal life? To the lives of your future high

school students?

12. What economic lesson would be helpful in teaching high school students about the economic

content featured in this article? Use Virtual Economics 4.0 or www.econedlink.org. List the

name of the lesson and the name of the publication.


www.socstrp.org


Appendix C

Active-Learning, Interdisciplinary Economic Lesson Descriptions

Grou

ps

Interdiscipli

nary

Subjects

(Concepts)

Primary

Economic

Concepts

Active-

Learni

ng

Strateg

y

Lesson Overview

1 Sociology

(Social

Inequalities

and Social

Institutions)

World

History

(Transatlant

ic Slave

Trade)

Factors of

Production;

Supply and

Demand;

Trade

Game The preservice teachers used a highly graphic

PowerPoint to discuss the Transatlantic Slave

Trade from an economic and sociological

perspective. The PowerPoint was then used to

play a game called “Who Wants To Be a

Merchant?” modeled after the television game

show “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?”.

Fifteen game questions reviewed basic concepts

in economics, sociology, and history, as they

pertained to the root causes, events, and

outcomes of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

2 Geography

(Renewable

and

Nonrenewa

ble

Resources)

Natural

Resources;

Supply and

Demand

Role-

play

The lesson began with a presentation of U.S.

natural resource imports and trading partners

(e.g., diamonds come from Belgium) followed

by a review of supply and demand. Next,

students were assigned a country/resource then

asked to trade with five other

countries/resources, after which all trades were

transferred to a world map with arrows showing

which countries supplied and demanded which

natural resources.

3 Government

(Role of

Government

in a Market

Economy)

Market and

Governmen

t Failure;

Business

Regulation

Political

Cartoon

s

The preservice teachers first analyzed several

political cartoons with the class about market

and government economic failures. The

students were then divided into two groups and

given a political cartoon expressing opposing

economic perspectives about business

regulations and asked to analyze the cartoon

using a six step process. Both groups shared

their interpretations of the cartoon with the

class. The lesson concluded with students

attempting to draw their own political cartoons

about the economic concepts featured in the

lesson.

4 U.S. History

(Industrial

Revolution)

Specializati

on; Costs

Simulati

on

After a brief discussion of what life looked like

for an average American before the Industrial

Revolution, pairs of students were instructed to


www.socstrp.org


Author Bio

Cheryl A. Ayers is the Associate Director of the Center for the Liberal Arts, Advanced Research

Specialist in the Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, and Adjunct Faculty

in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. Before earning a Ph.D. degree in

Curriculum and Teaching, she served as a director of Kindergarten-12 teacher education and

professional development in economic education for public and private schools in central

Virginia. E-mail: [email protected]

and

Benefits

illustrate how specialization contributed to the

development of cities during the Industrial

Revolution. Then, the inservice teacher read a

script of how colonial farms were slowly

displaced while the students used markers to

draw farms, schools, stores, factories, houses,

and roads as directed by the script reading.

5 U. S.

History

(Cotton

Industry)

Factors of

Production;

Production;

Costs and

Benefits

Simulati

on

The lesson began with a brief overview of the

U.S. cotton industry in the 19th century followed

by a simulation in which two groups of students

were given different types of capital (e.g.,

scissors) to produce as much cotton (i.e., one

inch squares of paper) within three different 2-

minute rounds. Various unexpected events

(e.g., natural disaster) were announced in each

round, representing the variables that affected

cotton production. Total production was

calculated after each round and compared

between the groups.

developing preservice and inservice teachers’ pedagogical ...developing preservice and inservice...

Documents