Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
pedagogies within social studies curricula. Critical inquiry pedagogy is a constructivist approach to
knowledge formation that critiques traditional knowledge constructs and includes essential elements
of critical theory and other progressive educational theories. It is pedagogical perspective that involves
the interrogation of traditional funds of knowledge through co-participatory and non-hierarchical
discourses. This paper focuses on the following aspects of critical inquiry pedagogy: theoretical
origins, views and perspectives of contributing radical and progressive theorists, an exploration of the
conservative opposition and the progressive response, and an introduction to the application of critical
inquiry pedagogy in classroom environments.
This paper analyzes critical inquiry pedagogies within social studies curricula. The
perspectives are those of progressive and radical educators, philosophers, and historians who
recognize the failing of traditional social studies curricula to address its racial inequalities,
political marginalization, and historic Eurocentric and cultural biases. Critical inquiry pedagogy
seeks to expose students to debates on issues of social justice, yet not predetermine the
outcome of the debate. As Fecho (2000) posits, critical inquiry pedagogy facilitates an
environment where students can come to their own conclusions about the current status and
According to Graff (2000), progressive educators generally agree that the democratic
ideals of western culture are “compromised by issues of domination and inequality within
society” (para. 8). Yet as currently constructed, social studies curricula perpetuate racist and
sexist ideas in U.S. society and furthermore supports its classist social paradigm (Banks, 1995;
Giroux, 2004; Lowen, 1995; hooks, 1994; Spring, 2005; Swartz, 1993). This paradigm is
reinforced by teachers who provide their students with a Eurocentric pedagogy and curricula
that excludes or minimizes the contributions of people of color to U.S. history (Lowen, 1995).
As a result, students of color and white students of low socioeconomic status whom hooks
(1994) defines as the traditionally marginalized are under represented in the curricula.
Teachers who do not engage in critical discourse of U.S. society do their students a
1
disservice and contribute to a gap in achievement between middle class majority students
relative to students of color and low socioeconomic status (Bartolome, 2004). According to
Giroux (2004), knowledge within social studies curricula should reflect the sociocultural and
political realities of society (The role of curriculum in critical pedagogy section, para. 3). As
Banks (2004) explains, knowledge construction in a society is directly related to the social,
political, and economic contexts in which knowledge exists (p. 228). Furthermore, progressive
since the Civil Rights era (p. 235). However, these pedagogies have failed to change continuing
inequitable conditions within schools and within curricula. Graff (2000) suggests the creation
environment for students of color and white students of low socioeconomic status.
Fecho (2000) also describes curricula that are critical of the inequalities within U.S.
society. He reaffirms Graff's calls for a critical pedagogy based on inquiry, and proposes an
alternative to hierarchical discourse on issues of social justice and the historical marginalization
of various minority populations. He instead proposes a pedagogy based on student inquiry that
“crosses cultural boundaries and empowers students” (p. 195). He calls this concept critical
inquiry pedagogy.
The discussion of critical inquiry pedagogy in social studies that follows is divided into
three parts. The first part is a discussion on various progressive pedagogical perspectives and
the historical and theoretical origins that have led to the construction of critical inquiry
progressives on critical theory and critical pedagogy and their application in critical inquiry
pedagogy. The third part is an exploration of applied critical inquiry pedagogy in classroom
2
environments. The third part also includes descriptions of what can result when critical
In this section I review literature that is a summation of the perspectives that have led
pedagogical concept, according to Fecho (2000), that combines aspects suggested by various
authors of progressive educational material. Critical inquiry pedagogy combines parts of equity
pedagogy, transformative education, engaged pedagogy, inquiry pedagogy, and critical theory
into one unified theory that promotes the formation of transformative knowledge through
An equity pedagogy “exists when teachers modify their teaching in ways that will
facilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural and gender
groups” (Banks, 1995, p. 392). This equity pedagogy is a key aspect of Banks' concept of
transformative education. Vavrus (2002) states that transformative education “counters neutral,
isolated images of educational policies and practices by bringing to the forefront critical
theory's unifying concept of power relationships” (p. 7). An engaged pedagogy as propagated by
hooks (1981, 1994) is similar to Banks' ideals of transformative education. However, hooks'
theories are influenced heavily by her extensive studies of the social and economic constructs
of the African nation of Kenya (Florence, 1998). Hooks' (1994) engaged pedagogy can best be
Inquiry pedagogy is also a building block in the construction of critical inquiry pedagogy.
Inquiry pedagogy is “a process where students formulate investigative questions, obtain factual
3
information, and then build knowledge that ultimately reflects their answer to the original
question” (Fecho, 2000, p. 194). Critical inquiry pedagogy also includes aspects of social
critique from critical theory. As described by Giroux (2004) and Gordon (1995), critical theory
seeks to provide a radical critique of knowledge, by taking into account the situations,
structures, and interests that influence the construction of knowledge. Furthermore, when
applied to curricula, critical theory embraces radical philosophies that run counter to pervasive
King (1995) defines hegemony as “the processes of domination that are maintained not
through sheer force, but through consensual social practices” (p. 268). King further describes
hegemony as the powerful winning the consent of marginalized populations through systemic
and institutionalized oppression (p. 268). According to Gordon (1995), “[C]ritical theory is the
critique of (hegemonic) domination” (p. 190). Critical theory posits a world that is
progressively becoming less free. From this understanding, critical theory seeks to affect
change upon the mechanisms of domination within U.S. society. It further implies that present
configurations of society are not static and can be changed by concerted effort among the
Each of the proceeding authors appears to have their theoretical roots in the philosophy
of John Dewey. Dewey was a radical educational theorist in his time and his writings have
numerous times in nearly all the works included in this review of literature. Therefore, when
discussing such derivative matters, it is useful to begin with his words. Dewey (1915) sought a
different kind of education, not one that would adapt workers to the existing industrial regime.
4
Instead, he sought the creation of knowledge that would alter the existing industrial regime and
ultimately transform it (p. 40). Dewey supported a type of education that would create a
society that was more mindful of issues of social justice and equity—especially for the working
class. According to Dewey, much of the education within U.S. schools serves as indoctrination
into dominant ideals, “especially with reference to narrow nationalism under the name of
patriotism, and with reference to the dominant economic regime” (Dewey as cited in Hursh &
Ross, 2000, p. 60). This flawed idea of patriotism that Dewey speaks of has become one of the
central aspects in the dominant culture's arsenal to subvert transformative ideas. It has become
overlaid with Eurocentric beliefs that reinforce Anglo established hegemony in society (Kivel,
2002, pp. 86-87). Similar to Dewey, Counts (1932/1978) spoke of critical classroom pedagogies
in opposition to societal hegemony. He called for teachers to use the classroom to build a
socialistic society, and for teachers to become leaders, not just in their schools or local
Along with Dewey and Counts the Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire is also one of
the most quoted and prolific progressive educational theorists. His writings on issues of
pedagogical reformation and progressive education have served to heavily influence the theories
of many of the authors cited in this discussion. Freire (1985) explained that when textbooks
reinforce and legitimize ideals of hegemony over marginalized groups. In his book The Politics
of Education, Freire (1985) suggests this hegemony is a social justice issue in that “any
situation in which humans prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of
violence” (p. 17). Moreover, Freire suggests an aspect of self-preservation in the suppression
of knowledge and the educational policies of majority groups. Freire contends that “it would be
5
extremely naive to expect the dominant classes to develop a type of education that would
Others have joined Freire in citing self-preserving aspects of dominant culture. Mendel-
Reyes (1997) states that the excessive exercise of democracy was written out of the
Constitution from the nation's inception. Furthermore, he posits that the “founding fathers”
methodically set up a procedural republic, held together by nationalism and other forms of
progressive movements within our society, members of marginalized groups who have
assimilated and embraced dominant ideology have been placed in positions of prestige within
the U.S. society. As Ogbu (1992) explained, these members of marginalized groups “who have
made their way out of the ghetto, barrio, and reservation” often serve as the most tenacious
defenders and protectors of majority point of view and the status quo (p. 3).
Throughout the 20th century, despite these protections and barriers created by the
dominant culture, progressive thinkers have promoted education as a means to develop the
social conditions and intelligence that can enable citizens to make social decisions that support
their community’s welfare (Hursh & Ross, 2000, p. 3). These progressive educators believe
that schools have the power to construct the ideals of democratic society, pass those ideals
onto students, and encourage them to use those standards as a benchmark to judge both their
The idea of using education as a means of social reformation has its roots in a variety
of theories and philosophies. Some, such as Giroux (2004), cite Marx and his critiques of the
hegemonic social practices within capitalist societies. Giroux (2004) suggests the formation of
6
critical pedagogies that appropriate theories from “feminism, postmodernism, and neo-
social studies curricula (The role that teachers play in critical pedagogy section, para. 5). Giroux
states that “practices of racism, sexism, and capitalist exploitation” inhibit the expansion of
“social justice and human emancipation” within U.S. society (Affirming modernity's democratic
Although Bowers (1967) agrees with Giroux, Bowers' argument comes from a different
perspective. Bowers supports the case for a pedagogy in opposition to traditionally racist, sexist
and classist knowledge construction, not through the ideals of Marx, but through a critique of
the ideals of the founding fathers themselves. Bowers' writings are an indictment of the
structure of our government through the words of Madison. According to Bowers, the
Constitution does not necessarily represent the high-minded ideals that are often associated
with it. Instead, it is a work that reflects the view of men who believed in private property
over government and, furthermore, that government was not subject to control by majorities
through popular sovereignty (p. 461). As Bowers asserts, the Constitution is a document that
facilitates the exploitation of the masses rather than their governance (p. 462).
Vavrus (2002) illustrates this exploitive aspect of the American system, and explains
that “people are objectified economically as a resource for consumption” (p. 107). The U.S.'
existence is a direct result of European colonial expansion. Upon their arrival Europeans began
a society based on military seizures and the forced colonization of people in order to access
cheap goods to trade with other colonial powers (Vavrus, 2002). However, this version of
7
The ideals taught in traditional social studies curricula are deeply deficient in critiques
of America's historical actions (Lowen, 1995). Banks (2004) concurs with this analysis and
advises educators about the ingrained barriers set up by the dominant culture; he states that
scholars who are outside of the mainstream must construct oppositional knowledge to combat
institutional hegemony (p. 230). According to Gordon (1995), these pedagogies must go beyond
the contributions approach as described by Banks (2001) and be transformative experiences for
students:
Challenging the omissions and distortions of this hegemonic regime of truth is thus not
merely a matter of infusing more information into a faulty premise, but of
reconstituting the conceptual systems that govern models of humanness and models of
being.... In both form and content, it signals the transcendence of a new world
civilization. (Gordon, 1995, p. 184)
structure.
outside of the dominant culture. This is a flawed development of the classical ideals of
education. According to Brown (1999), the classical goals of education in general and social
studies specifically are to produce an enlightened citizenry and strengthen intellectual powers
within society (p. 327). However, as presently constructed, only a selected few from
marginalized populations become the next generation of political elite (Spring, 2005). This
areas of study to be more reflective of the composition of our society (pp. 275-276). The
8
resulting more equitable pedagogy would decrease feelings of exclusion from curricula among
various traditionally subjugated classes. To accomplish this goal, social studies needs new
curricula (Brown, 1999, p. 327-332). The difficulty in creating these new curricula is that
unfortunately the democratic ideals that are most often taught in schools, and that are
pervasive in society are based on the philosophical perspectives of 18th century social contract
theorists like John Locke (Ross, 2000, p. 57). Locke was part of an oligarchy that reserved
individual liberties and freedoms for themselves and members of their class. Subsequently,
Allen (1999) states that there cannot be a true democracy where all people live as
equals when there are “systems of domination” (p. 2). According to King (1995), under
conditions of domination, social and cultural differences are negated by the majority in
preference of a “single normative common culture” (p. 271). This common culture reflects the
biases of those in power. Within it Eurocentric ideals of individualism are emphasized to the
benefit of those who possess the ability to exercise them, and to the detriment of those who
do not. In response King proposes an alternative pluralistic model that facilitates greater social
cohesion and equity through “shared pluralism” (p. 271). Under this model ambivalent views
are highlighted and discussed. This contributes to an increase in group autonomy for
traditionally marginalized students. Furthermore, this model facilitates an inquiry into rationale
behind the traditional construction of social studies curricula and a demand for a more
accurate representation of the roles traditionally marginalized students play in society (pp. 270-
272).
9
If schools are to disrupt stratification of success by race, class, and gender, new critical
pedagogies must be created. These critical pedagogies must defy Eurocentric hegemony and
contemporary society (Swartz, 1993). The traditional role of the school, according to Banks
(2001), has been to prepare students to accept their “assigned status” in our society (p. 99).
Accordingly, current curricula replicate the socio-economic and political structure in which they
exist (p. 98-100). Considering the current U.S. socioeconomic structure and the assault by neo-
conservatives on multiple aspects of public life, according to Giroux (2004), educators must
supports the creation of a new movement in which pedagogy is linked to social change in an
effort to develop “critical agency and critical subversion of the dominant power” (Affirming
critical pedagogies can incur significant opposition from neo-conservatives, who, according to
Giroux (2004), have commenced an intense program to counteract the efforts of progressives.
Giroux further states that in a concerted and global effort neo-conservatives are successfully
dismantling historically guaranteed social provisions within the welfare state. Additionally, they
are shaping definitions of democracy to exclusively refer to “market freedoms and profit
making for rapidly expanding corporate states” (Critical pedagogy as a matter of context,
pedagogies, criticize them as distorting reality and threatening the social fabric of U.S. society,
and promote group rivalry among marginalized groups and the dominant culture (Shor, 1993,
10
p. 7). They instead cite a presumed supremacy of Western culture as an inducement to the
preservation of traditional values in social studies curricula (Hursh & Ross, 2000, pp. 7-8).
Presently, in the U.S., the dominant voices in public discourse reside on the political right.
opposition to social welfare, bilingual education, and ethnic studies programs. In juxtaposition
authors that are more progressive have been less successful at promoting their point of view to
ideas of self direction and individualism, yet it ignores society's obligation to define “the
sociopolitical forces that undermine such efforts” for marginalized people (p. 130). If
democracy has already been achieved as neo-conservatives posit, then the primary purpose of a
social studies education is to teach students its agreed upon meaning. However, if progressives
are correct in believing that democracy is a project, then social studies education must teach
students not a fixed content, but a method for questioning, evaluating, and recreating the
subject that is appropriate for the creation of both democratic and cultural citizenship
(Steinberg, 2000, p. 131). This potential for the creation of new democratic and cultural ideas
is the essence of critical inquiry pedagogy: students must be given the opportunity to determine
their own construct and definition(s) of democracy and the direction in which they prefer it
Social studies is a course of study that lends itself to social activism through the
initiation of critical inquiry pedagogy. Cohen (1993) proposes a literal usage of the word social
studies. She suggests social studies become a vehicle for the study and critique of unequal
11
social structures. She posits that equity within classrooms can be increased through direct
discussions of relevant issues that may not necessarily be directly tied to the curriculum, but
are relevant to students' everyday lives. This can be taken one step further through the
social studies classrooms. The main challenge to the implementation of a critical pedagogy and
a democratic dialog is establishing these concepts within a public education system and a
Brown (1999) posits that new perspectives and knowledge bases are not learned from
data that has already been processed through the filter of dominant ideology. The introduction
of oppositional knowledge can enhance the understanding of larger societal concepts and
issues. Social studies teachers can redirect the rationale and focus of the curriculum to
encourage critical thinking and evaluation of societal issues (p. 329). Critical pedagogical
perspectives facilitate working to eradicate deeper “ideological and material” barriers faced by
students (Bartolme, 2004, Educators as dedicated cultural brokers section, para. 3). Because
social studies can make it possible to link social sciences, art, culture, literacy, and self-identity,
social studies can become a tool to analyze and transform economic, political, and cultural
forces and create a more democratic society (Hursh & Ross, 2000, p. 10).
Changing school to be more democratic means more than changing the structures and
processes that are used in making decisions (Kohli, 2000, p. 33). As Mendel-Reyes (1997)
presupposes people can and should rule themselves, whereas schooling encourages people to be
changed through a multi-year process that involves being led by someone else. Therefore,
12
that will facilitate societal transformation (p. 224-227). Teaching methods that are openly
political, eschew the traditional illusion of neutrality, and urge their own critique are pivotal to
classroom practices that seek to work against the appearance of more modern forms of fascist
However, Graff (2000) cautions educators against proselytizing when he states that
“overtly trying to radicalize students is the least effective way to radicalize them” (para. 6). It is
students; they must be encouraged and allowed to develop their own pedagogies. According to
hooks (1994), hierarchical power relationships between students and educators reinforce
historical ideals that support the inevitable development of class divisions and non-equitable
student achievement among marginalized communities (p. 204). Allen (1999) therefore argues
that teacher preparation programs need to model a democratic process that can translate to K-
academic achievement between traditionally marginalized students and students from the
majority culture (The study section, para. 5). At the school cited in her case study, educators
classroom engagement, for students of color and majority students living in poverty
(Awareness of asymmetrical power relations section, para. 1). Additionally, Harmon and
Katims (2000) reported “significant gains” (p. 287) in note taking behaviors, student
13
involvement, and comprehension test scores in middle school social studies classes through the
Critical inquiry pedagogies serve as way to socially empower and engage traditionally
marginalized student in America operating under critical inquiry pedagogy would question why
cultural ideals and characteristics of the majority are presented as the beau ideal within society
(hooks, 1981). The goal of teaching knowledge as a social construction through critical inquiry
pedagogy is to neither make students cynics nor encourage them to desecrate European heroes
such as Columbus and Cortes. Rather, the aim is to help students to understand the nature of
knowledge and the complexity of the development of U.S. society and to understand how the
history that becomes institutionalized within a society reflects the perspectives and viewpoints
The issue at hand is whether social studies should promote a certain “view of history”
and “brand of citizenship” or promote a more critical citizenship aimed at transforming society
(Hursh & Ross, 2000, p. 55). Swartz (1993) prefers the latter; she speaks to a new
understanding of social studies and calls for a reconceptualization of patterns of teaching and
learning:
Students cannot become advocates for societal change through the strictly establishment
14
perspectives that comprise the majority of current social studies curricula. Allen (1999)
therefore asks if it is the role of social studies education to give students the tools to succeed
and conduits for change (p. 14). Traditional social studies curricula fail to examine historic
injustices and in doing so provide tacit approval of societal, historical, and political injustices.
These dominant classroom social studies curricula usually include “text-oriented, whole group,
teacher centered instruction” where emphasis is placed on memorization of facts. This method
lasted throughout the last century and into the current one because of “the pressure of
organizational setting and school culture” (Hursh & Ross, 2000, p. 47). These pressures work
envisions that history will no longer taught from the point of view of the victor, but with
“equity and consideration to all” (p. 129). In so doing, U.S. public schools have the opportunity
to alter their historic role of replicating and reproducing social inequalities. Ending the
replication of social inequalities in schools is likely to move the U.S. away from the traditional
pedagogical paradigm. As described by Banks (2004), under the current paradigm non-critical
the dominant political forces within a society” (p. 231). Critical inquiry pedagogy endeavors to
undermine this paradigm and to raise questions about the origin and effects of dominant
political force. Giroux (2004) explains that in defiance of traditional pedagogies, critical
pedagogy seeks to provide a way of reading history as part of a larger project of reclaiming
power and identity, particularly around the categories of race, gender, class, and ethnicity
15
In contrast a traditional mainstream social studies curricula rarely questions the basic
assumptions of the educational environment. Questions like “are schools situated in the ways
that best benefit student learning?” and “is the curriculum an authentic reflection of the
nation's history?” are rarely asked. (Prilleltensky& Nelson, 2002, p. 96). According to Banks
(2001), a social studies instructor should aide students in the creation of their own pedagogies
through inquiry based curricula and ensure that students do not become consumers of only
status quo knowledge. Social studies teachers should furthermore push students towards new
ways to “organize, conceptualize, and think about information” (p. 205). Clark and
Lutzenberger (1999) state that social studies teachers should use their respective disciplines,
discourses, and conventions as “cultures” (para. 9). They posit teachers should view their
students as “metaphorical travelers in a foreign land” and impart them with multidisciplinary,
non-traditional, and progressive concepts (para. 9). In doing so teachers can facilitate the
disciplines. This can contribute to the creation of students with unique radicalized pedagogies
(p. 3).
Banks (1995) engages in critical inquiry in this critique of the book The Bell Curve.
Banks asks, “Why was the book so well received by educated people? Who benefits from the
arguments contained therein? And why do arguments about the genetic inferiority of African-
Americans continuously resurface?” (p. 397). These types of questions are at the heart of
critical inquiry pedagogy for students. Banks (2004) contends that critical pedagogies enable
individuals to construct different ways to conceptualize the world. Moreover, he posits critical
pedagogies illustrate how groups in power create knowledge that maintains their power (p.
230). In this example Banks provides no answers; he only poses critical questions.
16
If a teacher is authoritarian, little student engagement occurs. According to Marker
(1993), teachers must avoid being authoritarian in regards to instilling a political ideology. To
facilitate the development of critical and analytical skills, an opportunity for social critique must
be provided. Teachers, especially those working with politically and socially subjugated students
must possess an “outrage and sense of student advocacy” that reflects the increased political
and ideological clarity they seek for their students to create. (Bartolome, 2004, Assuming a
counter hegemonic stance section, para. 3). Bartolome (2004) advances that in addition to the
expected technical skills in subject area and educational methodologies, teachers must possess
courage in the face of criticism from administrators and parents who oppose the
perspectives (Assuming a counter hegemonic stance section, para. 5). Moreover, teachers must
denounce injustices that marginalize large portions of their student bodies and create
section, para. 5). As stated by Lowen (1995), history is not a study of isolated facts, but is
about determining the results and relevance of past occurrences to the contemporary societal
constructs. When history is examined through critical inquiry, issues of social justice and
inequity become its central concerns and motivation for societal change (Cervetti, Damico, &
Perdles, 2001).
Eurocentric ideals and encourage students not to question society and instead to simply trust
that society is “good.” Through textbooks that imply the domestic and foreign policies of the
17
U.S. are always right and socialization that implies the same, students become efficient
consumers of American majority ideology (Lowen, 1995, pp. 307-308). The attitudes of
members of the majority formed from these textbooks are reflected in their treatment of
marginalized people (Swartz, 1993, p. 498). Through overt methods like the manipulation of
textbook content to minimize the contributions of people of color and immigrants (Lowen,
1995), and covert methods like the exclusion of critical views of American foreign policy from
historical discussions (Giroux, 2000), the marginalization of the "Other" has been sewed into
Conclusions
multicultural education and other progressive pedagogies have failed to shift views regarding
traditionally marginalized populations and their contributions to U.S. history. Additionally, U.S.
social studies curricula has traditionally been constructed under the influence of the dominant
class within our society as a means of reinforcing a racist, classist, and sexist social paradigm
that has been present since the inception of America and American public education (Banks,
1995; Giroux, 2004; Lowen, 1995; hooks, 1994; Spring, 2005; Swartz, 1993). Critical inquiry
constructivist approach. It includes the introduction of new perspectives that more accurately
portray the history of the nation and eschew herofication and the minimizing of historical
students through a top down patriarchal structure, critical inquiry pedagogy places the
Critical pedagogy proposes that education is a form of social and political intervention
18
that is capable of creating the circumstance in which social reformation can flourish (Giroux,
oppose assimilationist pedagogies and neo-conservative messages that propagate the supremacy
of Western culture. Educators instead, as Giroux suggests, should support a curriculum that
allows students to develop their own views of the world, views that more accurately reflect the
In working towards this goal, an essential aim of social studies curricula should be to
expand the awareness of and provide students with a way to develop their own views and
perspectives of the formative historical role the U.S. has played in global affairs (Brown, 1999).
According to Fecho (2000), this proposed knowledge construction can best be accomplished
education illustrates the failing of curricula as currently constructed to improve the status of
Democracy is a form of government that recognizes the right of the people to take part
in, directly or indirectly, controlling their political institutions.... It also describes
practices of society as a whole that enlarge opportunities for people and that place
emphasis on the dignity of the individual. (Kohli, 2000, p. 33)
This description of democracy is not reflected in traditional social studies curriculum where
issues of racism, sexism, and classism are ignored and marginalized. Understanding the truth
of these matters requires a significant undertaking on behalf of the student and teacher. A
reflective reexamination by educators would illustrate the obscuring of the political and
ideological consequences of current inequitable societal constructs within the U.S. Instead of
succumbing to the demands from those in power to obey, social studies teachers should avoid
the compulsion to use status quo perspectives and embrace critical inquiry (Ross, 2000). In
19
social studies classrooms, failing to include critiques of these flawed constructs results in
disinterested students who can be apathetic to the direction of their democracy and ultimately
In moving towards the stated goal of counteracting biased traditional pedagogies and
facilitating the construction and development of a more democratic public education system
and society, a new social studies curriculum based in critical inquiry should be established.
This curriculum should involve the full integration of traditionally marginalized populations
and historically underrepresented political perspectives into lesson plans. Additionally, this
discourse should interrogate why these viewpoints were previously excluded from traditional
pedagogies.
In order to foster a more critical citizenry and facilitate the construction of more
socially and politically active students, social studies teachers are obligated to integrate
discussions of these issues into the classroom. To this end, the following five practices are
recommended for the implementation of critical inquiry pedagogy in social studies classrooms:
through arguments and construct their own reasoned conclusions on historical events (Lowen,
1995). Through constructivist approaches, students are given an opportunity to decipher for
themselves what is at stake in the ideological differences that surround them (Giroux, 2004).
Social studies teachers should insist that students ask the question “why?” when they are
presented with Eurocentric historical points of view. Instead of preaching progressive ideas to
students from a bully pulpit, social studies teachers should create an environment where these
ideas are constructed and developed by the students themselves through critical inquiry of
20
established knowledge (Fecho, 2000).
2. Facilitate safe and co-participatory learning environments. Social studies teachers should create
own knowledge, social identities, and philosophies within them (Swartz, 1993). This can be
facilitated through peer teaching and the fostering of a safe learning environment for students.
A social studies teacher needs to create an environment where students feel comfortable to
express personal beliefs and safely interrogate status quo knowledge. Such a
reconceptualization requires new patterns of teaching and learning that involve deliberate
power sharing on the part of teachers with students through non-hierarchical classroom
discourse.
3. Embrace democratic citizenship education. Schools are appropriate places for democratic
education because they possess essential aspects of a democratic society: a diverse population
and an abundance of fertile minds. However, traditional educational practices usually prevent
schools from taking advantage of these ideal settings (Mendel-Reyes, 2001). Social studies
teachers should introduce students to models of citizenship and democracy that transcend
passive or participatory models. Social studies teachers should embrace democratic citizenship
education models that promote social cooperation and democratic participation. Through the
implementation of critical inquiry pedagogies, social studies educators can begin to rectify the
failing of traditional pedagogies and foster political and social activism among students.
4. Dialog towards the development of a critical social consciousness. If social studies teachers
desire to move the U.S. towards a more egalitarian and equitable construction of democracy
and away from inequitable and Eurocentric paradigms, it is essential that students understand
the world more comprehensively than current pedagogies facilitate (Brown, 1999). It is
21
imperative that students as future leaders of a democratic society understand the economic,
political, and historical circumstances in which the U.S. has functioned and inequity has
5. Supplement Eurocentric textbooks with more balanced educational resources. In order to foster
critical discourse of societal and historical realities in social studies classrooms, teachers need
to include non-traditional sources that contain revisionist historical analyses in social studies
curricula. In the absence of inclusive social studies textbooks that reflect the complex and
often inequitable history of the U.S., educators should become comfortable with and help
students access alternative primary and secondary historical sources (Lowen, 1995).
The current movement of oppositional pedagogies grew from the successes of the civil
rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s and has aided in liberating large numbers of
students from many national myths and misconceptions (Banks, 2004). This process must be
continued; students must be taught social studies in a manner that helps them come to their
own conclusions about the social, political, and historical issues that will either secure or
endanger their democratic freedoms (Lowen, 1995). Moreover, social studies teachers should
facilitate student knowledge construction through critical inquiry pedagogy. Students of all
social, racial, gender, and cultural backgrounds need and deserve a curriculum that cultivates
22
References
Allen, J. (1999). Community of critique, hope, and action. In J. Allen (Ed.), Class actions:
Teaching for social justice in elementary and middle school (pp. 21-34). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Banks, J. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. The Journal of Negro
Education, 64(4), 390-400.
Banks, J. (2001). Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum, and Teaching (4th
Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Banks, J. (2004). Race, knowledge construction, and education in the United States. In J. Banks
& C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.) (pp. 228-
237). Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, R. (1999). Middle school social studies and the cognitive revolution. The Clearing
House, 72(6), 327-330.
Cervetti, G., Pardales, M., & Damico, J. (2001, April). A tale of differences: Comparing the
traditions, perspectives, and educational goals of critical reading and critical literacy.
Reading Online, 4(9). Retrieved December 14, 2004 from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/cervetti/index.html
Clark, E., & Lutzenberger, J. (1999, Fall). Minding the gap: Introduction to radical teaching
practice. Radical Teacher, 26, 2-6. Retrieved November 11, 2004 from H.W. Wilson
education index database.
Cohen, J. (1993) Constructing race at an urban high school: In their minds, their mouths, their
hearts. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender in
United States schools (pp. 289-308). Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
Counts, G. (1978). Dare the school build a new social order? Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press. (Original work published 1932)
23
Dewey, J. (1915). Education vs. trade-training - Dr. Dewey's reply. The New Republic, 3(28),
40.
Fecho, R. (2000). Developing critical mass: teacher education and critical inquiry pedagogy.
Journal of Teacher Education 51(3), 194-199.
Florence, N. (1998). Bell Hooks' engaged pedagogy: A transgressive education for critical
consciousness. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Freire, (1985). The politics of education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Giroux, H. (2000). Democratic education and popular culture. In D. Hursh & E. Ross (Eds.),
Democratic social education: Social studies for social change (pp. 85-96). London:
Falmer Press.
Giroux, H. (2004). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern/modern divide: Towards a pedagogy
of democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 31-47. Retrieved November
11, 2004, from H.W. Wilson education index database.
Graff, G. (2000, Spring). Teaching politically without political correctness. Radical Teacher, 58,
26-30. Retrieved November 11, 2004 from H.W. Wilson education index database.
Harmon, J., & Katims, D. (2000). Strategic instruction in middle school social studies:
Enhancing academic and literacy outcomes for at-risk students. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 35(5), 280-289.
hooks, b. (1981). Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston: South End Press.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York:
Routledge.
Hursh, D., & Ross, E. (2000). Democratic social education: Social studies for social change. In
D. Hursh & E. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for social
change (pp. 1-23). London: Falmer Press.
King, J. (1995) Culture-centered knowledge: Black studies and cultural transformation, and
social action. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural
24
education (pp. 265-293). Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.
Kivel, P. (2002). Uprooting racism: How white people can work for social justice. Gabriola
Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Kohli, W. (2000). Teaching in the danger zone: Democracy and difference. In D. Hursh & E.
Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for social change (pp. 23-43).
London: Falmer Press.
Ladson-Billings (1994). The dream keepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lowen, J. (1995). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got
wrong. New York: Touchstone.
Marker, P. (1993). Not only by our words: Connecting the pedagogy of Paulo Freire with the
social studies classroom. Social Science Record, 30(1), 77-90.
Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21(8),
5-14.
Ross, E. (2000). Redrawing the lines: The case against traditional social studies instruction. In
D. Hursh & E. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for social
change (pp. 43-65). London: Falmer Press.
Shor, I. (1992). Culture wars: School and society in the conservative restoration 1969-1984.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, W. (1989). What’s so democratic about whole language. Democracy and Education, 3
(3), 1-4.
Spring, J. (2005). The American school: 1642-2004 (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Steinberg, S. (2000). The new civics: Teaching for critical empowerment. In D. Hursh & E.
Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for social change (pp. 121-135).
25
London: Falmer Press.
Urban, W. (1978). Preface. In G. Counts, Dare the school build a new social order?
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
26
27