Planning and Assessment in Social Studies

During my 3 lesson sequence I followed a social constructivist theory where I favoured the idea
that learning is a personal linking of ideas and experiences, and is a meaning making process
(Hung, Lim & Jalamudin, 2011). I set the challenge of extending students present ideas through
inquiry and interactions with peers. Looking at individuality, family and culture was an especially
rich area as it greatly showcased how prior ideas and feelings influence not only our learning,
but what makes us who we are. While planning for social studies, I was constantly forced to
reflect on the stance of both learner and teacher, as well as look at how instruction and
questioning can either enhance or hinder learning. The biggest question of all became: what do
I intend for my students to learn and how do I know if theyve achieved it? The following
deliberation on learning and assessment attempts to highlight that which I learned as well as
where, upon reflection, I would improve on how I identified learning.
My planning in Social Studies began with further examination of the Social Studies learning area
in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2007), as well as in Social studies
in the New Zealand curriculum (MoE, 1997) and Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum:
Getting started (MoE, 1998). The initial idea of doing a name inquiry came from the latter and
proved to be a great introduction to the content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge
of the social sciences. I was able to introduce my students to two social studies processes:
inquiry and values exploration. The development of my pedagogical content knowledge was
greatly increased through these texts and further extended in reading the suggested pedagogy
found in Te Takanga O Te Wa (Ministry of Education, 2014), a complementary framework that
supports the teaching of Maori history. Although this was not specifically a Maori history lesson
sequence, because the focus content of the lesson was on whanau, culture and whakapapa, I
thought it was a good resource. The suggested pedagogy states that teachers should
acknowledge students as experts, acknowledge bias and stereotyping, utilise social inquiry and
use the Best Evidence Synthesis in social sciences (MoE, 2014). With Sinnema and Aitkens
Effective pedagogy in social sciences: Tikanga a Iwi: Best Evidence Sequence (2008), I studied
the importance of planning for meaningful learning by providing first-hand learning based on
their own experiences. In addition, I considered and explored their prior knowledge, looked at
ideas from different perspectives and promoted dialogue (Sinnema & Aitken, 2008).

From this point, I began to shape my learning intentions. Because my idea came from the 1997
curriculum and the achievement objective was no longer in the current curriculum, I established
the correct level, strand and achievement objective, as well as the skills being emphasised.
While designing my learning intentions I used Michael Absolums Clarity in the Classroom
(2008) advice to have clear learning intentions and success criteria that spells out in greater
detail the intention of the lesson (p. 67). To make appropriate learning intentions and success
criteria I started my first lesson by finding out what they already knew; what they already thought
of who they are. I chose to base my learning intentions around the processes of inquiry and
values exploration, and to emphasise conceptual understanding in how their family and history
shapes who they are. I encouraged their own interpretations of who they are, whether it be as
an individual, family member, or friend, as it encouraged a conceptual understanding of identity
where there is no right or wrong. In crafting the learning intentions I used Blooms Taxonomy to
develop more complex thinking processes gradually (Freeman & Lewis, 2016). I focused mostly
on knowledge, comprehension and application as this was only a 3 lesson sequence.
The first pedagogical approach I prioritised was questioning. In the planning process I tried to
remain diligent about questioning as both a way to learn and as an assessment tool. My biggest
caveat in teaching this lesson sequence was ensuring that I pay close attention to my views of
the world so that I was not imposing them on the students. I agree with Gibbs (2006) who says
that teaching is seeking, constructing and deconstructing meanings about our individualities as
human beings (p. 2), and the construction of ideas cannot happen when you are told what to
think. This required substantial purposeful discussion which necessitated planned dialogue with
specific learning in view. All the while, I wanted to give them time to discover for themselves
how cultural practices reflect and express peoples customs, traditions, and values (MoE,
2007, p. 47). Because of this, I did not make the learning intentions explicit in the first lesson; I
wanted to be mindful of not telling them what I was hoping they would learn, but to get them
question and looks at the cultural and historical factors that have shaped them. This went well
and the students developed wonderful questions for their name inquiry. Not only did questioning
help with assessing their learning later, but in the first lesson it helped me identify the students
prior ideas and knowledge. This then helped guide me where to go next with the learning, and
later identify how their ideas had changed.
In lesson 2, I provided a thought bubble that served as a form of self assessment. After
discussing, comparing, and contrasting their names and naming traditions with a partner, the

students were asked to answer the question what does my name tell me about my
family/culture?. Most, but not all, students were able to connect what we had learned to
beginning ideas of family connections and cultural values. One failing of this assessment was
that there were a number of students who were not able to complete the inquiry with their family
so they had little conceptual understanding of what our names can tell us. Upon reflection, I
would have liked to give the students more than one night to complete it, but due to time
constraints I was not able to give that time. In addition to this drawback, the classroom in which I
am doing my practicum rarely sends anything home. This made me cognizant that when I am a
beginner teacher, I will need to design a classroom culture and home relationship that allows for
learning to connect between both school and home.
A highlight of having spent so long on developing learning intentions and success criteria was
the ease with which I could determine the growth in their learning. In creating a rubric where I
could look at the development of their ideas I was able to prioritise the process of their learning
and not the product These processes are stressed in social studies, a learning area where
inquiry and values exploration are skills intended to be learnt. I looked at how they collected
information and processed it. Then, through our final discussion and their final crest, I was able
to see if they could make generalisations and reflect upon their findings as evidence of progress
in their thinking, as outlined in the assessment section of Social studies in the New Zealand
curriculum (MoE, 1997). In looking at their crests together they were able to share their favourite
thing and I was able to share what I liked as feedback, along with improvement suggestions and
questions to clarify their thinking. The feedback and feedforward is encouraged by Shirley
Clarke in Unlocking Formative Assessment (2005), but I found it was much more natural for me
to give feedback. Feedforward was easier to give to students who were highly engaged and
wanted to find out more, but sometimes I caught myself giving feedforward for lower level
activities like their writing and drawing when the feedforward should have mostly pertained to
the concepts of cultural practices, customs, and values.
The meaningful learning that I hoped would be at the forefront of this lesson sequence was skill
development in inquiry and values exploration. I saw firsthand the engagement that having a
theme with authentic connections to the students elicited. Before this year, I had only really ever
known summative and interim assessment. I know that throughout my schooling teachers were
still using formative assessment such as goal-setting but it seemed to mean a lot less than the
marks on my report card. So far in my practicum I have been able to see and value how much

things like questioning, setting goals, summarising and review, and peer assessment can do for
learning. The issue at hand for me is the competing demands on teachers when it comes to
assessment. The pull on a teacher is tripartite: assessment to help students learn more, for
themselves to evaluate and figure out where to go next, and for schools, parents, and the
government to monitor learning (Absolum, 2006). I feel as though the question period with my
students was my best form of assessment for learning as well as the best way for me to
determine where to take the learning next. The rubric I created was interesting to view the
growth and extension of students initial ideas, but I feel like if I were to do it again I would put
more columns: some for the key and cultural competencies we were using, and some for
notation of the level of thought during our informal discussions and question period.
My planning in social studies has left with with a lot more questions that I began with, but I am
fortunate because I believe that the social inquiry approach, the skills emphasised in social
sciences, and the social sciences acknowledgement of diverse perspectives and knowledge are
all skills that can help me across disciplines. I feel firmly planted in social constructivism as it
allows for the construction of learning with the students and values their contributions. There is
a lot I would change about my lessons, but I welcome the appreciation they have given me for
valuing the process of learning, acknowledging perspectives, and the need to use a variety of
assessment approaches in order to truly assess learning.

References
Absolum, M. (2006). Clarity in the Classroom: Using Formative
Assessment. Auckland, NZ: Hachette Livre NZ.

Aitken, G., Sinnema, C. (2008) Effective pedagogy in social sciences:

Tikanga a Iwi: (BES). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Clarke, S., Timperley, H., & Hattie, J. (2003). Unlocking formative
assessment. Auckland, NZ: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Freeman, R., Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and Implementing Assessment.
New York, New York: Routledge.
Gibbs, C. (2006). To be a Teacher: Journey Towards Authenticity.
Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education.
Hung, D., Lim, S. H., Jalamudin, A. B. (2011). Social constructivism,
projected identity, and learning: A case study of Nathan. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 12(2), 161-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-0109116-y
Ministry of Education. (1997). Social studies in the New Zealand
curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1998). Social studies in the New Zealand
curriculum: Getting started. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington:
Learning Media.