Search

There has been renewed interest over the past 5 years among sociologists in empirically examining the status of sociology in high school. The few studies that have recently been conducted, however, have focused almost exclusively on high school sociology teachers. The nature and structure of the courses themselves have been largely ignored. Given the American Sociological Association’s recent attempts to develop and implement an Advanced Placement course, it seems especially important to examine the characteristics of existing sociology courses. This paper uses the results of a national mail survey to describe and discuss three aspects of the nature and structure of a random sample of sociology courses that were offered during the 2005–06 school year: instructional materials and pedagogical resources, teaching techniques, and course content. I demonstrate that these aspects of the courses look remarkably similar across the country: Teachers rely overwhelmingly on standard introductory textbooks to structure their courses. They are also apt to utilize supplemental materials from textbook publishers and from newspapers and newsmagazines, and to use a combination of lecture and discussion in their sociology classes. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since academic sociology's birth in this country, sociologists have not been shy about publicly praising and ridiculing the discipline. Though sociologists have been the primary participants in the seemingly endless debates about sociology's proper subject matter, methods, and purpose, there is another group that has also struggled over the past 95 years to formulate a conception of the discipline—high school sociology teachers. At this point, we know virtually nothing about what the thousands of high school teachers who offer sociology each year, actually think about the discipline. This paper uses questionnaire and interview data collected from high school sociology teachers to examine their thoughts on four topics: (1) sociology's strengths, (2) its weaknesses, (3) whether high school students are capable of understanding the discipline, and (4) appropriate course objectives. The results indicate that high school teachers view sociology quite differently from academic sociologists, and that their conceptions are based primarily on ‘textbook sociology.’ I conclude by discussing the far-reaching implications of teachers' current thinking about the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role that the American Sociological Association (ASA) has historically played in reforming high school sociology courses has been alternately apathetic, active, or antagonistic. Apathy marked the time period between 1905 and about 1960, and again during most of the 1970s and 1980s. The Association played a much more active role during the New Social Studies movement of the 1960s, and has also been actively involved since the late 1980s. But even in its activity, the ASA has been antagonistic toward high school courses and teachers. During the 1960s, and again since about 1989, the ASA has pushed solely for the teaching of sociology as a scientific discipline. This approach has proven problematic for two reasons. First, it directly contradicts the traditional objective of the social studies curriculum — citizenship education. Teachers are much more concerned about molding good citizens than exposing students to the nuances of scientific inquiry. Second, it ignores the well-documented fact that high school sociology teachers typically have little training in, exposure to, or experience with formal, academic sociology. For that reason, they have had great difficulty satisfying the demands made by academic reformers. I conclude that the ASA must address these two issues and several others if it is serious about improving secondary sociology courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emphasis in sociology Ph.D. programs continues to be on training researchers rather than teachers. This is a serious mistake, given the overwhelming proportion of students who go on to academic careers that require at least some time in the classroom. Departments that offer some type of graduate training in teaching focus almost exclusively on the students' mastery of pedagogical strategies--tools, tips, and techniques for improving their instruction. But this approach neglects students' assumptions about sociology as a discipline--or their sociological orientations--that underlie and inform their pedagogical choices. This paper explicates the relationship between sociological orientation and pedagogical practice, and asserts that graduate students need to consider their orientation to the discipline before stepping inside a classroom. This may be effectively accomplished through a required year-long seminar to be taken during the second year of graduate study. The first semester would be devoted to the issues, debates, and questions that currently characterize the discipline. The second would consider the "nuts and bolts" of teaching, and how pedagogical practice derives from sociological orientation. Students would also work as teaching assistants before, during, and after completing the seminar. They would then be required to teach at least one course of their choice before gradu-ating. During this first teaching experience, each graduate student would work closely with a faculty mentor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]