Lived experience and the ideologies of preservice social studies teachers

Lived experience and the ideologies of preservice social studies teachers

Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsev...

264KB Sizes 2 Downloads 62 Views

Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage:

Lived experience and the ideologies of preservice social studies teachers Elizabeth Anne Kenyon Kent State University, White Hall 404, Kent, OH 44242, United States

h i g h l i g h t s  Past experiences of authority in school reveal individuals' ideologies.  Lived experiences of authority in schools influence teachers' ideologies.  Authority, as enacted in the classroom, creates an implicit curriculum of citizenship.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 13 January 2016 Received in revised form 20 September 2016 Accepted 6 October 2016

Using narrative inquiry, this paper explores the lived experiences of six preservice social studies teachers. It uses these lived experiences to gain insight into these preservice teachers' orientations towards teaching social studies, particularly in regard to their ideological understanding of authority and citizenship. Each experience shared in the study both revealed and then shifted already established beliefs and assumptions in regards to school authority. The paper continues to the preservice teachers' own goals for their Social Studies classrooms and how their understanding of authority is present or absent in those goals. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Authority Ideology Implicit curriculum Lived experience

1. Introduction Preservice teachers come to teacher education with a set of prior experiences involving schooling, teaching, and authority. They bring their apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 2002), as well as pedagogical experiences with those in authority that took place outside of the walls of a classroom or school (Greenwalt, 2014): including those with teachers and administrators outside of school, with parents, and with other authority figures in students' lives. These experiences shape their ideologies, and within their ideologies, their ideas of who and what teachers can and should be. With these understandings of teaching, come beliefs about relations of authority in the classroom. All of these experiences, both in and outside of school, take place in a particular social, political, national, and cultural context, saturated with ideology. In this paper I define ideology as the values, norms of appropriate behavior, and beliefs about relational structures including how a citizen interacts with

E-mail address: [email protected] 0742-051X/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

their government. This paper looks at the intersection of ideology, authority, and social studies education in the United States. Teachers, as a part of a government institution in many contexts, are the most immediate experience most students have with government authority. The relational structures within schools form a part of students' ideologies and their understanding of citizenship (Tobin, Hsueh, & Karasawa, 2011). Teachers themselves have these past experiences of authority in pedagogical relationships that impact their ideologies. They enact these ideologies in their classrooms. This enacting of ideologies through the relations of authority creates an implicit curriculum of citizenship. In other words, it teaches children about the relationships of authority that can exist within institutions that they will participate in and navigate as citizens throughout their lives. This is true for all teachers, however, it is particularly salient for social studies teachers who are tasked with the teaching of citizenship both through the explicit and implicit curricula (Eisner, 1979, pp. 74e92). Thus, the way social studies teachers understand their relationship to their government structures in regards to agency, criticality, and levels of participation, impacts the way they teach their students both about and

E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

through (Kerr, 2002) citizenship. This paper, which is part of a larger study, explores the ‘implicit curriculum’ of future social studies teachers' lived experiences of authority. I contend that the implicit curriculum of student and teacher relations of authority informs preservice teachers' ideologies of authority and that these ideologies are both revealed and further shaped through their lived experience. Furthermore, these preservice teachers go on to live out these ideologies of authority in their own teaching. The larger study looked at lived experiences of preservice social studies teachers in regards to their ideologies of citizenship. One of the major findings was the role of experiences of authority in shaping and reflecting these ideologies. These experiences of authority both revealed and contributed to the participants' ideologies. The paper also focuses on how these experiences gave meaning to their social studies teaching orientation. Looking at the experiences of three preservice secondary social studies teachers, this paper asks:  What are some of the underlying assumptions about teacher authority that preservice teachers develop?  How do those experiences of authority both reveal and construct the participants' ideologies in regard to authority?  How do their experiences reflect their ideology and intended teaching of social studies and citizenship? To frame this research, I first discuss the concept of ideology as it is employed in this paper. Then I review different assumptions about authority in the United States as well as studies on how social science is taught both in the United States and in other countries. Although experiences of authority are not the sole determinant of one's ideology, they do influence and reflect ideology. I view experiences of authority as one piece of individual ideology that is interwoven with others. Orientations in teaching social science are one way in which teachers live out their ideology in concrete and material ways. Following this framing of the research I share the study methods, findings, analysis, implications, and conclusions. 1.1. Ideolog(ies) The term “ideology” has many changing and contested definitions (Eagleton, 1991). Here I understand ideology as encompassing the values, beliefs, and assumptions about the ways in which governments, citizens, and nations interact in society today. This includes the responsibilities and options individuals and communities have for maintaining the status quo or enacting change. I draw from Althusser's (1972) explication of ideology and its connection to both subjectivity and the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA), of which schools are a part. For Althusser, individuals are interpellated, or drawn into ideology, and become subjects of that ideology. They then carry out that ideology in their material practice. I contend that dominant ideology both carries its own authority and that relations of authority, or beliefs and assumptions about relations of authority are a part of the dominant ideology in the United States. These expectations of authority work to maintain the authority of the ideology itself. Schools play a role in interpellating individuals as subjects into dominant ideologies (Apple & King, 1979). The authority schools establish through both explicit and implicit curriculum is a component of this ideology (Eisner, 1979, pp. 74e92). An aspect of the dominant ideology of schooling in the United States is an assumption about the place of the pupil within an institution in relation to others and to knowledge itself: older people have authority over younger people, more educated people have authority over less educated people, the knowledge of adults has authority


over the knowledge of children, and the knowledge in books has authority over the knowledge gained through experience. In this way, ideology draws subjects into seeing themselves as teachers, students, and citizens within a particular structure. We are “put in our place” believing in the power of others and institutions over us. I do not use ideology in the oft-attributed polemical sense, or as the thing used to accuse others of unreasoned thought (McCarthy, 1994). Ideology, here, is impacted by life experiences, built of an individual subject's interactions with the Ideological State Apparatuses, and the demands of material existence (making a living: finding shelter, procuring food, and the like). I select ideology over “identity” because it has a distinctly political quality. I also select it because although we come to know everything through experience, ideology precedes the experience of the individual; it is a system that the individual becomes a part of. Experiences can refine an individual's ideology, but it is an ideology that is already being enacted by institutions and subjects that are external to the individual. Here it is helpful to divide ideology into two parts. There is the dominant capital “I” Ideology that is associated with dominant groups and maintains the status quo. Then there are the ideologies, small “i” of individual subjects (Leonardo, 2003; Mannheim, 1936). The two are related and neither is static. While dominant Ideology is more fixed, it is enacted through subjects and shifts to maintain power relations as culture and context change. Individual ideologies are born within the sea of the dominant Ideology. They are linked as individual subjects are drawn into dominant Ideology and yet, because they are created through and based in daily material existence, differ from subject to subject. Because of this, the lived experience of individual subjects gives insight into the often invisible dominant Ideology and individual ideologies that are functioning at a particular place and time. In this study I explore undergraduate preservice social studies teachers and their lived experiences with the authority of schools and those in schools. At times, this authority is reinforced through the actions of teachers and administrators; at times such authority is thrown into question. These moments are memorable for the ways in which they go against the “implicit canonical script” (Bruner, 1991, p. 11) or in this case, the ideological script. These contradictions show how these experiences are not instances when the idea of authority was created for these individuals. Instead a pre-existing assumption about authority was disrupted. These new experiences add layers of ideological understanding to the participants' individual ideologies. Ideologies are manifested in our teaching in many ways. I will discuss two of those here. I include the first, the enactment of authority, because of its centrality to the experiences recounted in this paper. The second - orientations to teaching social studies - is one way in which the participants enacted their ideologies as they were becoming teachers. 1.2. Authority Authority is one of the structures of relation that are central to the concept of ideology that I employ here. Enactments of authority become an implicit curriculum of ideology, they are one way ideology is lived out and perpetuated. In this article, experiences of authority both shape and reveal the ideologies of the participants. There are indeed many other aspects of everyday lived experience integrated into individual ideologies. Authority is one thread in the tapestry of ideology. Yet, it plays an important role in understanding one's relation to government. In many countries, school is the first social institution, outside of the family, that most individuals navigate on their own. Teachers and their pedagogical relationships become an implicit curriculum of government and


E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

citizen relationships. Authority is at the heart of this. Scholars define authority in many, often competing ways (Bingham, 2008; Pace & Hemmings, 2007). In addition, there are several ways that authority functions within the dominant Ideology in the United States. Authority relies on legitimacy and trust. People must believe that the person in authority is there for legitimate reasons and if this legitimacy is corroded people will no longer grant that individual authority (Pace & Hemmings, 2007). Authority is often understood to have a strong component of trust (McDermott, 1977), both in the relationship of a citizen to their government and a student to their teacher. There is trust that the government is being honest and acting on behalf of the citizen and in the citizen's best interest. Similarly, there is trust that a teacher is acting in the students' best interest and is honest. This trust, and the authority that it invokes can ebb when the individuals in positions of authority betray that trust. In the stories that make up this paper, the participants' experiences of relations of authority are changed when school authority loses its legitimacy and when the façade of teachers' higher moral standing is broken. These and many more understandings of authority create expectations that are disrupted, hierarchies that are reversed, and roles that can confine. In this study the participants navigated their relations of authority with teachers and school officials. These experiences stayed with them, further forming their ideologies, impacting future experiences, and informing their expressed hopes of enacting authority themselves as teachers. In some cases, the experiences of authority inspired a desire for something different, in other cases, they alienated the participant from school, and still in others, expectations of authority were reified for the participant. In taking these experiences into their teaching, the participants are continuing a cycle of authority and expectation. As subjects they are reconstituting ideologies, and fostering particular types of citizenship. 1.3. Orientations in social studies In addition to everyday relations of authority, Ideology is present in our ideals of citizenship, the subject at the heart of social studies. Much research categorizes the teaching of social studies in the United States and internationally into various camps (Evans, 2004), traditions (Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1978), orientations (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), frameworks of citizenship (Kerr, 2002) or ways of being (Crowe, Hawley, & Brooks, 2012). However, this research is largely based on programmatic themes and structures, observation of teaching, national curricula, or memories of previous social studies teachers. These studies did not explore the dynamic ideologies of individual teachers and their impact on social studies teaching. I look at two of these studies that most closely relate to this research project. Barr et al. (1978) conducted a study of secondary social studies teachers in the 1970s to identify different traditions of social studies teaching as they were practised. The three traditions they identified were: citizenship transmission in which teachers teach the rules, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship and government; social science in which teachers train their students in the skills and tools of the different social science disciplines; and reflective inquiry in which teachers encourage students to reflect on their own experience and the world around them to generate their own, often more critical understanding of citizenship and government. This study was unique in that it focused on what teachers were actually doing as opposed to merely theorizing different ways of teaching social studies. However, while they provided rich descriptions of their three traditions, they did not attempt to identify how various teachers arrived at these traditions.

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) conducted a study that looked at different ideas of good citizenship as represented in several school programs. They connected these ideas of good citizenship to their political and pedagogical implications. Through their research they identified three conceptions of citizenship: personally responsible citizenship which described a citizen who follows the rights and duties of citizenship, votes, and would contribute to a canned food drive; participatory citizenship described as a citizen who not only fulfills the rights and duties of citizenship but also leads community organizations, runs for political office, or may organize a food drive; and social justice oriented citizenship in which an individual questions what about the status quo leads to hunger. These different conceptions of citizenship all reflect a different ideology, but again, they do not focus on how teachers arrive at these ideologies. Here, I seek to not only identify the ideology of social studies preservice teachers, but also to address how their lived experiences of authority shift or change that ideology, or do not shift that ideology. 2. The study 2.1. Narrative inquiry Narrative inquiry gives insight into how people make meaning of their everyday lived experiences (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). In this case, narrative inquiry allows us to understand how lived experiences are a crucial part of teachers' continuum of experience (Dewey, 1938) with each experience building on past experiences and influencing future experiences. Narrative inquiry broadens the temporal context of social studies teachers' ideologies, providing an understanding of how their past experiences with authority are folded into their present understandings of teaching and democracy. Every narrative comes with a purpose; a desire for the teller to establish themselves as a good person (Riessman, 1993). Because of this, narrative inquirers take everything into consideration, the context of the telling, the relationship of the teller to the listener, the time and place of the telling (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Stories change as we grow more distant from the experience, as we dialogue with others, or as we add new experiences to our lives. Because of this, narrative inquiry is not a search for factual truth but for meaning and meaning-making. Narrative inquiry helps the researcher and the researched understand how they make meaning of their experiences, and consequently their worlds. 2.2. Participants and researcher The larger study, of which this is apart, took place during a yearlong secondary social studies methods course and the subsequent yearlong teacher internship. Because I served as both researcher and course instructor for the methods course, participation was completely voluntary. I introduced the study to the students at the beginning of the year and made a formal request for participants a few weeks into the course. Students indicated their interest in participating through email. Six students volunteered. These six included four women and two men. All participants were white and five came from middle to upper middle class backgrounds with one from a working class background. Three of the participants were non-traditional to our teacher education program, meaning they had either left school for an extended period of time or were returning after receiving their bachelor's degree. The group was representative of this particular methods course, however, the larger program of which it was a part tends to be majority male with a strong majority of traditional students. This paper focuses on

E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

the stories of three of these participants, two non-traditional students and one traditional. At the time of the research I was a doctoral student. I am a white middle class female. During the research I found myself negotiating the roles of instructor, researcher, and friend.1 Like most of the participants, I grew up in a small town. As a child I always respected authority. I was aware of certain injustices, particularly related to the differential treatment of girls and boys, and at times I would ask those in authority to change the rules to make it more fair. While I at times disagreed with my teachers, I rarely felt that I was in a position to openly challenge them on what they did. As a teacher educator I am at times uncomfortable with my own authority, which was the case with this class. Partly in response to this discomfort, and partly because of my pedagogical beliefs, I always attempt to create constructivist learning environments. This was particularly true with the class these participants came from because of the ages and experiences of the students and because the course took place in a public middle school where we spent significant time every week in an eighth grade United States history class where preservice teachers had many opportunities to learn from experience.

2.3. Limitations and affordances All research carries with it different limitations and affordances. My position as both researcher and course instructor must be acknowledged in this regard. Our instructor/student relationship could not be completely suspended during interviews. I did find that, particularly with participants who were my age or older, conducting the interviews in spaces outside of educational institutions mitigated the amount of instructor/student interactions and increased the peer to peer storytelling and sharing. As researcher, I cannot fully understand how this instructor/student relationship impacted upon what the participants were and were not willing to tell me. I can conjecture that they were particularly cognizant of the “good story” of themselves (Riessman, 1993) with regard to their understanding of teaching. To mitigate the impact of the student and teacher relationship and any ethical concerns this created, I reiterated throughout the project the voluntary nature of the research, their ability to leave the project at any time, and my assurance that their participation, or decision not to participate would not affect their grade in the course. In addition, I waited to conduct the third set of interviews, in which I most deeply interrogated their ideas about being a social studies teacher, until after I had submitted grades for the year and the participants were no longer my students. One of the advantages to the multiple relationships I had with the participants is that I was able to develop rapport with the participants prior to our first interviews. This proved crucial in being able enter into their life stories. Another affordance my combined role offered was the shared context of our course, the classroom we worked with, and the school the course was housed in. This allowed for clearer understanding to be developed between the participants and myself. It also allowed me to see them teach. Finally, the constructivist nature of the course both mitigated power differentials and established an understanding that I valued the participants' knowledge and experience.

1 Because some of the participants were very close to me in age we would at times find ourselves relating more as peers or friends. Also, in some ways, narrative inquiry is very similar to the way in which I “do friendship” in that my friends and I share experiences about our lives to make sense of the world at large. In developing rapport, I would occasionally share a story myself (though briefly).


2.4. Data The backbone of the study included four or five semi-structured life history interviews with each of the participants. This paper focuses on the first three interviews conducted with three of the participants. In these interviews I asked for a brief life overview. Then, I asked about memorable moments from their K-12 experience both in and outside of school, their post-secondary experience, and their experience in the teacher education program. In addition, we discussed significant moments in their decisions to become social studies teachers and probed both why they wanted to teach social studies and how they hoped to impact future students. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. In addition to the interviews, several assignments from the course informed the research. These assignments included: blog posts about memorable moments in school; entries from conversation journals including one with a prompt to respond to Barr, Barth, and Shermis', The Nature of Social Studies (Barr et al., 1978); lesson plans, classroom management plans, and teaching philosophy statements. Finally, as the course instructor, I took field notes of important conversations in class and observations I made of their teaching. 2.5. Data analysis I identified distinct stories and experiences in each of the interviews and blog posts. Two or three potential themes were coded to each story. From this, prominent themes were identified. For this paper I chose one of the strongest themes, that of authority in the pedagogical relationship. I then selected all the stories that were related to authority in the pedagogical relationship and used Van Manen's (1990) wholistic approach with both selective highlighting and a process of writing and rewriting to find the lived meaning of each experience. I then referred to the course documents completed by each participant to deepen my understanding of their stories. These documents included both reflections on the past and reflections on their future desired selves as teachers (Miller & Shifflet, 2016). Working both across stories and within participants' lives I identified assumptions and beliefs about authority that were revealed in the various stories. I then looked for ways that these assumptions and beliefs were both present and absent in their current thinking about teaching. During my third interview with participants, I checked these current thoughts and beliefs with the participants and, once we established their thinking and beliefs, I asked them to look at various artifacts from our course such as lesson plans and classroom management plans, to show me where these thoughts and beliefs are present in their teaching ideas. Furthermore, I checked across all interviews, course documents and journal entries for each participant for any discrepancies. 3. Findings and analysis: three stories 3.1. Rebecca's story Rebecca's story is one that makes me cringe as an educator. For her, school was a place of perceived failure, a place where doors closed instead of opened, and a place that defined her in ways it took her years to break through. What for many of us are considered to be common rites of passage, for Rebecca became moments of embarrassment and exposure, an unfortunate collision of school and personal life. School did harm to Rebecca in ways that made her want to return and not only redeem her own experience and place in school, but to also redeem the idea of school for others. Rebecca describes her growing up as very privileged. Until the ninth grade school was a good place for her. She was active in


E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

sports, well-liked by her peers, and successful academically. One night when Rebecca was in ninth grade she went to the bowling alley with some friends and was caught smoking by her softball coach. As she shared in a blogpost, As soon as I lit up, my former teacher and coach walked around the corner. I immediately tried to hide my action but it was clear that I had been caught … I remember the feeling of death in the pit of my stomach. I was so afraid of what he would think, do, and how much trouble I would be in that I could barely breathe … He ripped into me. He told me how disappointed he was …. By second hour on Monday I had been pulled into the principal's office and had spoken with him and the athletic director about the incident. I was immediately removed from the volleyball team and that was only the beginning. … I feel that this incident subconsciously defined the way that I interacted with classmates, teachers, and adults for the remainder of my secondary schooling. Many of us have the moment of the first cigarette smoked, alone or with friends in some hidden corner. Maybe the smoke made us cough or feel sick, maybe we got caught by an older sibling or parent, few of us get caught by our softball coach and are consequently removed from a sports team. In this story the ‘feeling of death in the pit of her stomach’ revealed Rebecca's ideology of authority: her visceral response reflected her prior beliefs and assumptions about authority. This belief was that being caught doing something wrong by someone in authority would likely result in severe consequences imposed by the person in authority. Rebecca struggled to complete high school. Her tenth grade year she started arriving later and later to class and eventually not at all. Her only explanation was that the further behind she was, the more overwhelmed she was. During the following years Rebecca went back and forth from private school to public school trying to find a successful place. I asked Rebecca if any adults tried to support her during this time and she did not remember anyone in a position of authority offering help. In her fifth year of high school Rebecca attended a private boarding school. At this point in the interview, Rebecca paused, and then shared with me that in this final year she developed a relationship with a female student. This was a significant occurrence for her. The school was aware of it from early on in the relationship and as a result imposed various restrictions, like not letting them go on a trip where all the girls would be sleeping together in the same room. About two months before the end of school, they were caught engaging in sexual behavior by the dormitory supervisor. The rules of the school stated that anyone engaging in sexual activity would be expelled. However, Rebecca was familiar enough with the school to know that even that rule could be worked around.2 The faculty and staff at the school had continually expressed discomfort with her relationship with another woman, and after having the opportunity to get dressed, Rebecca and her partner were sent straight to the headmaster's office. They had to call their parents and tell them not only that they were being expelled, but why (Rebecca had not told her parents about being attracted to other women yet). They were taken off campus that night. For Rebecca, this felt like school officially closing the door on her, and who she was as a human being.

2 Rebecca was aware of other cases in which heterosexual couples had been caught in sexual acts and not expelled. She felt that many of the adults in the school were primarily uncomfortable with the fact that they were in a same-sex relationship and used this rule as an excuse to expel them.

Later in the interview I asked Rebecca why she chose this as her story of a memorable school experience. She answered with the following: I chose this topic to talk about, I think, because it's the point in my education where somebody said, “you can't, you don't belong here anymore”. Like, that to me, even when I got caught smoking a cigarette, I still belonged, I just was a certain type of person at that point …. But like it's that point in your life where the door closes for you, on you. Twice Rebecca was caught by school authorities. The second time in particular, the authority was exercised in a stark and painful way and one that felt like it was as much about who she was as what she had done. Because she had to leave that night, because they made her call her parents and tell them in detail the reason for her expulsion, because, as Rebecca said, there was some “grey area” in what she and her girlfriend were actually doing which the school chose to define as out of bounds, the cruelty of the situation highlights the power of school authority closing the door on Rebecca. It is clear from her stories that Rebecca's ideas of school authority were firmly set before she was caught smoking the cigarette. She had a visceral, corporeal response when she was caught. When she started to struggle with going to school and completing academic work, her understanding of authority in the school created a sense for her that it would be impossible for her to catch up, to succeed. Her understanding was of an unbending authority, one that does not yield to personal struggle or difference. Her experiences at the boarding school added an arbitrary and unjust nature to her understanding of authority as well as a sense that she was being punished for an aspect of her identity as much as for her actions. Throughout Rebecca's experience in high school she had an increasing sense of alienation from school as a result of the ways in which those in the schools enacted authority. This alienation is not unlike that described in other texts about marginalized groups in school (Demerath, 2009; Ferguson, 2000; Willis, 1977). For the most part Rebecca was in a place of privilege. However, having a same sex partner eventually put her in a place of marginalization. It was the enactment of authority that alienated Rebecca, left her feeling distant and lost, with only consequences to face and no support. 3.2. Rebecca's response Rebecca returned to university to become a social studies teacher several years later. While in the education program she took a job as a paraprofessional in a sixth grade Montessori classroom. Through her work in schools, Rebecca, as subject, reconstituted ideas of authority in a slightly different way, living a slightly different ideology. In her work she started to put humanity with authority in guiding students. For example, one student who was struggling to complete work and maintain focus was slipping behind. Most of the teachers had given up with this student. Rebecca however, met with him consistently, pressed him to express his needs, helped him get assistance for his auditory challenges, and convened a conference for him with all of his teachers. She implemented flexibility in her work with him while still holding him accountable for his learning. In her efforts with this student, Rebecca was redeeming school authority and school in general for both herself and the student. She as a subject was enacting an authority and an ideology of authority different from the stark, unbending, personal, and arbitrary authority that she had experienced.

E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

Rebecca saw social studies as the discipline best suited to students learning through their own experiences and connecting those experiences to the content. This goes against the more traditional ideas of authority of knowledge in school, in which textbook knowledge is regarded as more valid than lived experience. It also allows students more space to explore themselves and be more fully who they are. In addition, she wanted to leave her students the space to explore what was most important to them and to use the talents they have. She envisioned this happening through the process of being a part of a group. In one interview she shared, “I see [school] as … an opportunity for kids to … come in more like a camp experience, you go to camp and then you come back, and you're like, ‘I'm a changed person,’ you know what I mean?” Similarly, in a journal entry about what kind of a social studies teacher she wanted to be Rebecca shared that, [Disciplines] need to promote individual talent and group goals. Social studies education needs to extend beyond curriculum and offer applicable skills and lessons for students in current contexts. It needs to allow them to recognize failures and successes in society and in history and in current day, and needs to provide the opportunity for anyone to develop and change individually and as part of a whole. (underline in original) In short, Rebecca's ideology was one of valuing individual students both for what they were capable of but also for who they were. Authority should be used to appreciate students' individual talents and interests. Knowledge gets its authority from lived experience. As it translates into social studies teaching, this ideology is short on considerations of content and long on relationships. Individuals become better citizens through their transformation as a part of a community or group. Subject matter is marginal to her sense of herself as a teacher. In guiding students to become powerful citizens she wanted to guide them in being powerful individuals who value themselves and who maintain a critical awareness in their everyday lives. She wanted her students to have the space, and appreciation, to fully explore who they are, she wanted the authority of schools to validate that process, not shut it down. 3.3. David's story David's ideas of teaching and authority were ingrained by his experience at a private K-8 Catholic school where order was strictly maintained and the authority of the nuns was imbued with a divine power. David's beliefs about teachers and their ability and right to punish gave them a less than human hue. In this story this idea of “teacher” takes a fall off the pedestal but is perhaps the better for it. The illusion of teacher as different, more perfect, more worthy, gets shifted. It was David's senior year of high school, a beautiful spring day, and he decided to sneak out of study hall, go behind a garage on school property, a place that was known as an excellent hiding space, and smoke a cigarette. He recounted the experience in a blog entry, After I lit up my Camel Red Light I turned the corner and that is when I came face to face with my study hall teacher, a cigarette dangling from his mouth. It came to me in a flash. He used to leave from the study hall session about 15 minutes in and would return just before the end. The teachers were just as outcast for smoking as the students were. We looked at each other and kind of just stared, not really finding the words.… Then something happened. We just started talking. Many of us that did smoke or still do would recognize it as the banter that you have with other


smokers around a butt can. There was a level of comfort that I did not have with many teachers until college. This story, like Rebecca's story, began with a sense of getting caught. However, David's story took a different turn when he realized the exposure was mutual. He had been caught, but so had the teacher. In recognizing their shared position, David and his teacher made a silent pact to never let this moment of exposure reach others. Here the dominant ideological script of authority is disrupted by the unexpected. Teachers are in a position of enforcing many rules and encouraging good behavior amongst students. A part of this is maintaining at least a façade of being morally upstanding adults themselves. In this instance, the façade is completely broken. I asked David if this experience changed the way he viewed teachers, “That's the first time I'd ever been consciously aware of a teacher doing something that even I knew they weren't supposed to do.” This shift changed David's material reality, his everyday existence around these teachers. A façade of perfection had been developed, one that everyone acquiesced to, but catching a teacher smoking while he was supposed to be supervising study hall broke through that façade in a material and visceral way for David. As stated earlier, the pattern of authority in school had been well ingrained during David's K-8 experience where misbehavior not only resulted in consequences, but potential reprisal from a higher power. David never questioned the authority of the teachers and nuns at the Catholic school, it became a part of his ideology enforced through both the religious and educational state apparatus. This disrupted sense of the expected lines of authority was important to David. He wanted to teach social studies because he wanted people to question the given story. He wanted people to question the authority of what they had been told. He wanted people to be able to really listen to each other, to offer another perspective, to see history as something that is complex and disputed. In asking David to clarify his reasons for wanting to be a social studies teacher as opposed to being an historian he referred to his experiences working at a local bookstore, You get such a contact with people who come in who are so wildly misinformed; who don't think that they are. And it's not maybe that they're completely misinformed all the way across the board, but they only get one side or they only read like one author and … like what they were told in the history text book is gospel and that's the way it is no matter what people find out … and that's never been something that I have subscribed to. I pushed David a little bit on why it is important that people not have the one sided view, and he responded by saying, Because when you get set in your ways, when you say “I know something,” when people are like, “this is how I feel, this is what I think and there's solid facts behind it,” I want someone to realize that those facts are still open to interpretation and that as soon as you … come to a point of absolutes you cease to have a conversation, you cease to have a dialogue. For him, democracy works when people are willing to question, listen and explore new ideas. In order for this to happen the unquestioning reliance on the authority of knowledge found in a school, political party, or religion must be challenged and David wanted to make that a part of his teaching. As discussed earlier, expectations of authority are both a part of many dominant Ideologies and also work to maintain those Ideologies. When we assume


E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

that a given source has authority of knowledge and refuse to question it, our individual ideologies become more static. In addition, our ability to act as critical citizens is diminished. 3.4. David's response This focus was present in one of David's favorite lesson plans. It was a review lesson for the lead up to the United States civil war. David had the students look at the issues the South was grappling with from the perspective of the North, and vice versa. As a part of this he wanted to remind students that at the time, most people did not want war and many were trying to understand the other's perspective in an attempt to avoid war. He loved this lesson because it muddied students' assumptions, got them thinking in ways more complex than the textbook presentation of the material, where one side had one agenda and the other side another, with war being the obvious outcome. With this lesson, students realized that there were some in the North who supported state's rights and slavery, and some in the South who were against slavery, and that both sides had mixed interests. This was pushing students to go beyond the authority of the textbook, to question what was in writing. In short, David's ideology was one of questioning and challenging authority in school, politics and religion. As it translates into social studies teaching, this ideology is expressed by challenging the historical myths that nations cling to in order to validate their righteousness and authority (Loewen, 2009). David wanted to disrupt the power of texts, of single stories (Adichie, 2009), in order to help students question both the past and the present, to take authority over their own learning, and to be better democratic citizens as a result. 3.5. Robert's story Robert was very successful in K-12 schooling. He played three sports a year, had the lead role in every play all four years of high school, and received good grades in advanced classes. School worked for him. Robert described himself as being patriotic. He considered going into the military. Unlike Rebecca and David who were in their early 30s and had a variety of experiences between graduating from college and starting their teaching degree, Robert went straight through. He was confident, self-assured, and enjoyed being helpful to others. Robert's story is one in which an eighth grade United States history teacher intentionally appeared to give his students control of the classroom for four days for pedagogical purposes. Robert, still struggled with this apparent giving up of control. He still expressed shock and surprise; and though he attested to it being a great learning experience, he questioned whether or not it was a good idea. This experience came from a lesson on the Constitutional Convention that his eighth grade teacher, Mr. Perez, did: He explained the project the Friday before … we were in complete control of running the class for the next four days and by the end of the week, that we needed to produce a class constitution written collectively, and that we would all receive a group grade. Now in hindsight, obviously with everything I've learned from the College of Education, I'm not sure that was really an appropriate way to teach it. But at the same time I learned a lot from it. So we came in on Monday morning and … he didn't say anything. He literally didn't say anything. And the first day was just chaos. You know, eighth grade students just running amuck and being loud and obnoxious and throwing things and he didn't say anything. Nothing. So then we left, and then we came back Tuesday; kind of the same thing, people just doing whatever they wanted.… Wednesday came and people started to

panic and Mr. Perez still has not said ANYTHING …. By the end of class Thursday, we weren't even close to being done and this was due the following morning. So myself and two other people basically went home and wrote the rest of it and printed it and turned it in. Robert went on to explain that on Friday, Mr. Perez shared with them the ways in which their experience was analogous to that of those who were at the constitutional convention where the United States' current constitution was written. Mr. Perez had taken notes throughout the week that he referred back to during this discussion. Robert stressed that this was an excellent and fun learning experience and added that, “Obviously for us it was a great time because we got to run the show for the entire week.” Robert stressed here over and over that Mr. Perez did not say anything during the days the students were in charge, that there was chaos and still, Mr. Perez did not say anything. Robert was clearly surprised by this apparent relinquishment of control. It was clear from other parts of our conversation that Mr. Perez did not lack the ability to control his classroom. Indeed, the very act of intentionally handing over control for a week indicated his confidence in his ability to not only regain control, but also maintain a modicum of control through his mere presence. Robert described him as being a large, older gentleman with a booming voice. However, Mr. Perez chose to sit there and let the week unfold. Here, the assumption that authority must always maintain explicit control, that one in authority would never choose to not exercise control, is revealed. Robert was surprised by Mr. Perez's decision because it went against his expectation that teachers always control the classroom, the students, and the learning. Robert was surprised by this break from the cultural script as an eighth grader and was apparently still surprised by it as an adult. Interesting too is Robert's ambivalence about this action. While he repeatedly stated what a great learning experience it was, he also repeated several times that he is not sure he would do the same thing, or that it was appropriate at the time. This not only shows surprise at Mr. Perez's actions, but also a certain amount of discomfort. This experience so contradicted Robert's prior assumptions and beliefs about authority that he was not convinced it was the right thing to do, even though it led to a great learning experience. Control, the ability to keep a group of students quiet and contained within the four walls of a classroom, is important to authority and the dominant Ideology of authority in that it maintains social structure. It is frequently instilled with force or intimidation, or the threat of either, but is also a sign of a person's status or place in society. The one who is in control of others is the one who is above others. The police maintain control of a protest, firefighters control a fire; it is an aspect of domination and authority to control. When parents or teachers appear to be unable to control children, they are seen as being unfit for their job as they are not appropriately maintaining the expected norms. Teachers (Pace & Hemmings, 2007) and parents are expected to have the right, the obligation, and the authority to control the behavior of children. I later asked Robert what he would do differently because of what he learned in the College of Education, which he mentioned in the above passage. He felt that having no classroom management was a bad idea and that Mr. Perez was only able to do it because of his size, authority, and reputation. In addition, Robert was concerned that it was a group grade with no clear expectations. He would not repeat this particular aspect for fear he would not be able to justify the students' grades. The concern of grading corresponds with the giving up of control. Grading is frequently used as a tool in education to control students' attention and behavior. If a teacher

E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

wants students to take a learning experience more seriously, they will put the material on a final exam or assign it points (Demerath, 2009). In addition, Mr. Perez relinquished control of the content. In Contradictions of Control, Linda McNeil (1986) shows the way in which many teachers, in an effort to control their classrooms, take greater control of the content, delivering it in lectures full of lists and dates. The control of knowledge becomes an aspect of controlling students. Here, by contrast, Mr. Perez allowed students to develop and construct their own knowledge, through experience. For Robert, this went against his expected ideas of authority and control in the pedagogical relationship. 3.6. Robert's response Robert's ambivalence about this learning experience appeared in his hopes for teaching. He spoke about the challenges of wanting to be more flexible but still maintain the control he was used to ascribing to teachers. During the first year of the study, he worked as an assistant coach with a girls' basketball team. At first, he took a casual approach with the girls, relating to them almost as a peer. However, as the season continued, he spoke of repeated frustration with things like getting through attendance on the bus. The girls never really misbehaved, but he felt like he had made a mistake, that he needed to maintain more control. By the end of the season he found himself snapping at the girls. When I pushed Robert to think of what he would do differently, he could not define anything. He struggled with the desire to create a fun atmosphere for the students he worked with while also maintaining a certain amount of control. Interestingly, he saw these two options as dichotomous, even though in many ways, his eighth grade experience proved that they were not. This shows the extent to which Robert was struggling with his ideas of authority and his desire to both change and maintain the ideology of authority in schools. Robert saw social studies as being the most important of the core subjects for students to learn in order to help them in life. He believed students should learn their rights and duties as citizens, learn to be productive members of society, keep a balanced budget, and have some sense of political decision-making. He was not interested in having students question the fundamental structure or history of the government and its authority. Despite Robert's positive learning experience when his teacher relinquished a modicum of control, in his desires for teaching social studies, he appears to support the dominant Ideology of an authority that maintains explicit control. In short, Robert's ideology is one of maintaining and supporting authority both in schools and in government. His lived experiences disrupted his image of teacher or instructor as always exercising control in a traditional sense. However, Robert was ambivalent, both in his desire to restore more traditional lines of authority and to create experiences of authority that were more relaxed. In regards to content, he wanted students to know enough that they could make their own decisions on how to vote, to understand the challenges of United States history in order to better appreciate the accomplishments of the country, but also to comply with their duties and responsibilities as productive citizens. 4. Discussion The curriculum, both intended and implicit, of schools helps form preservice teachers' ideas of authority in ways that are then tested and refined through lived experience. These ideas of authority are a part of and sustain their individual ideologies. The ideologies impact how they act out their citizenship and their social studies teaching. McCarthy (1994) describes ideologies as, “systems of representations that serve to orient human actors to one another


and to their worlds, operating as largely unconscious structures that express both how we actually live and how we imagine we live …” (p. 424). This applies here in the way teachers oriented themselves towards their students and the ways in which citizens orient themselves to their governments. Both of these are critical in teaching social studies. Returning to Althusser (1972) the preservice teachers were interpellated as subjects through the lived experiences of the implicit curriculum of their schools. This interpellation continues in their lives as teachers even as they play a role in interpellating their students into ideologies through relations of authority. These relations are mediated through the material conditions of lived experience, through desks, hallways, textbooks and the everyday interactions between teachers and students. These ideologies will shape the purposes with which these teachers approach their pedagogical relationships with students. They will impact how they live with children in the classroom and therefor, the implicit curriculum of their classrooms. They will influence the type of teacher they become and types of citizenship that are promoted and practiced in their classrooms. The experiences of David, Rebecca, and Robert all share similarities and differences. With both David and Rebecca, we share that sinking feeling in the stomach when you realize you are caught by school personnel with a cigarette in hand. Yet their stories have drastically different outcomes. Rebecca was removed from a sports team while David connected with a teacher in new and surprising ways. Rebecca's experiences reified school authority in regards to the school's ability to shape and dictate one's life. However, the arbitrary, personal, and extreme nature of Rebecca's punishment, particularly in what took place at the boarding school, removed any benevolent or trustworthy aspect of school authority. For David, getting caught with a cigarette muddied his sense of authority since he was not the only one caught. David himself caught a teacher, one in a clear position of authority, do something that was clearly wrong in both smoking a cigarette on school property but also doing it while he was supposed to be teaching. This could have resulted in a similar distrust of those in authority, however, David instead sees a more human side to those in authority, one he can more easily connect with. At the same time, David developed an individual ideology that resisted the authority of the written text, of political and religious institutions. For Robert, his teacher's choice to relinquish a certain amount of control of the curriculum, and of his students' actions surprised and apparently discomfited Robert. While Robert both enjoyed the learning experience and found it very educational, he was ambivalent about repeating anything similar in his own teaching. In some ways, his discomfort with the situation reified his ideology of authority involving control. This speaks to the fact that biography does not “cause” ideology in any simple sense–rather, lived experiences are the malleable source from which preservice teachers seem to refine and shift their ideology. Ideology and lived experience work in tandem with each other. Again, the experiences with school authority recounted here reflect that participants' ideologies by revealing what surprised them, what created for them a memorable moment and to a smaller degree, how these experiences shaped their ideologies even as they revealed them. These memorable experiences were interruptions to an ongoing implicit curriculum of authority. These evolving beliefs and assumptions around authority translated into their desires regarding both the explicit and implicit social studies curriculum. Rebecca planned to play a different role as teacher than the traditional ideological script dictates. As opposed to being the sole sources of knowledge and power, she sought to shift the structures of power in her classroom, taking into account individual students' needs and perspectives. In her desires for teaching, Rebecca appeared to embrace Barr et al. (1978)


E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103

reflective inquiry approach, one that relied on both content knowledge and personal experience in order to learn about and critique the world. David planned to resist dominant ideas both in his relationship with students, but also in the content that he teaches and how he teaches that content. David's approach most closely aligned with Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) social justice orientation in his desire to have students really question the status quo. This also reflects his experience with authority of a façade being broken, causing David himself to question what he had previously believed. Robert embraced the content of citizenship transmission (Barr et al., 1978), personally responsible citizenship (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) and was unsure about the authority of the teacher student relationship. 4.1. Implications and further research Though seemingly invisible, dominant Ideology plays an important role in the life of a society and nation. Understanding the role of the implicit curriculum of schools in perpetuating or changing that dominant Ideology is also important. Thinking briefly of the three aspects of dominant Ideology revealed here, we see how they play out on a national and global stage. The idea that authority provides external consequences for actions and for one's identity is playing out in many nation states and institutions in regards to the rights afforded same sex couples or in some places, the punishments designated under the law for same sex relationships. The belief in the moral superiority of authority is constantly challenged through political scandal, however, maintaining this façade is what allows people in the United States, in particular, to also ignore a morally blemished past and focus on the nation's goodness and exceptionalism (Loewen, 2009). Finally, the expectation that those in authority maintain explicit control, combined with the fear of losing control and deep issues of racism in the United States has proven deadly on an all too regular basis of late in confrontations between police authority and African American citizens. These are examples drawn from contemporary events, what follows are questions about subtler but equally important aspects of authority, implicit curriculum, and dominant Ideology, not only in the United States, but in other contexts. One point of inquiry is to better understand the role of authority in the development of ideology, particularly the assumptions and beliefs around citizenship. How is this developed in different cultures? How does it reflect or support a national government? How do relations of authority in school perpetuate or change the status quo in any given society? Do these relations of authority become more important in countries where citizenship education is less explicit, where, according to Kerr (2002), the implicit curriculum has a stronger role? What do these relations of authority look like in different national and cultural contexts? How are they different for marginalized groups (based on race, ethnicity, class and gender)? How does this impact active citizenship? Do these acts of authority contribute to the civic empowerment gap (Levinson, 2010)? This manuscript goes further, to another point of inquiry: the ways in which these experiences reify the status quo of schools. Do these experiences become an added layer to the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 2002)? Do they contribute to the entrenched grammar of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994)? How does the sense that school, and those who work in schools are imbued with not only authority but a moral superiority as was found in David's experience, make schooling, as it has always been done, a sacred tradition? How do these underlying assumptions and beliefs contribute to school's role in the Institutional State Apparatus (Althusser, 1972)? Teacher education can intervene here, but how is something we

are still learning. We see from the lived experiences recounted here that providing a different relationship between instructor and student, can have a profound impact on preservice teachers' understanding of the role of authority in classrooms. Teacher educators can provide that different experience. Further, we can engage those involved in citizenship education specifically in explicit discussions about their orientation towards citizenship, towards authority, drawing out the ideologies they unconsciously embrace in order to critique and reconstruct them, considering what aspects of ideology we want to foster and what we want to question. Through this we can explore changes in K-12 classrooms that could also foster ideologies that more closely align with exercising critical citizenship in whatever national and cultural context one is working. We need to not only understand the impacts of the implicit curriculum of authority on individual's ideologies and citizenship but also use this knowledge in intentionally thinking about how our life with students opens new avenues to powerful citizenship education. References Adichie, C. (presenter). (2009). The danger of a single story [TED blog post]. Retrieved from r_of_a_single_story?language¼en. Althusser, L. (1972). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses: Notes towards an investigation. In Lenin and philosophy, and other essays (pp. 85e126). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Apple, M., & King, N. (1979). Economics and control in every day school life. In M. Apple (Ed.), Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed., pp. 43e60). New York, NY: Routledge. Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1978). The nature of the social studies. Palm Springs, CA: E.T.C. Publications. Bingham, C. (2008). Authority is relational: Rethinking educational empowerment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1e21. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crowe, A. R., Hawley, T. S., & Brooks, E. W. (2012). Ways of being a social studies teacher: What are prospective teachers thinking? Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(2), 50e64. Demerath, P. (2009). Producing success: The culture of personal advancement in an American high school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. New York, NY: Verso. Eisner, E. (1979). The three curricula that all schools teach. In The Educational imagination (Vol. 10). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? Newy York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity (law,meaning,and violence). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Greenwalt, K. A. (2014). Frustrated returns: Biography, parental figures, and the apprenticeship of observation. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(3), 306e331. http:// Kerr, D. (2002). Citizenship education: An international comparison across sixteen countries. International Journal of Social Education, 17(1), 1e16. Leonardo, Z. (2003). Discourse and critique: Outlines of a post-structural theory of ideology. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 203e214. 0268093022000043038. Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 331e362). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Loewen, J. W. (2009). Teaching what really happened: How to avoid the tyranny of textbooks and get students excited about doing history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press. Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. McCarthy, E. D. (1994). The uncertain future of ideology: Rereading Marx. The Sociological Quarterly, 35(3), 415e429. McDermott, R. P. (1977). Social relations as contexts for learning. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 198. McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge. Miller, K., & Shifflet, R. (2016). How memories of school inform preservice teachers' feared and desired selves as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 20e29. Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review

E.A. Kenyon / Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (2017) 94e103 of theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4e27. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis (qualitative research methods). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2011). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453e479. http://

103 Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237e269. http:// Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.