This is an exploration of the rationale and justifications for the implementation of critical inquirypedagogies within social studies curricula. Critical inquiry pedagogy is a constructivist approach toknowledge formation that critiques traditional knowledge constructs and includes essential elementsof critical theory and other progressive educational theories. It is pedagogical perspective that involvesthe interrogation of traditional funds of knowledge through co-participatory and non-hierarchicaldiscourses. This paper focuses on the following aspects of critical inquiry pedagogy: theoreticalorigins, views and perspectives of contributing radical and progressive theorists, an exploration of theconservative opposition and the progressive response, and an introduction to the application of criticalinquiry 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

future direction of democracy within the U.S. (p. 194).

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

pedagogies based on an additive or contributions approach have been attempted by educators

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

of critical pedagogies based on student inquiry to facilitate a more equitable learning

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

pedagogy. Next is an examination of opposing views held by neo-conservatives and

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

inquiry pedagogy is introduced in classroom environments.

An Overview of Critical Inquiry Pedagogy

In this section I review literature that is a summation of the perspectives that have led

to the concept of critical inquiry pedagogy. Critical inquiry pedagogy is a constructivist

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

deeper analysis of established hegemonic constructs.

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

described as a reconceptualization of the current knowledge bases of both students and

educators in regards to issues of racism, sexism, and classism.

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

Eurocentric hegemony (Swartz, 1993).

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

oppressed and their progressive majority allies (pp. 190-191).

Theoretical Origins of Critical Inquiry Pedagogy

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

served as a source of inspiration for subsequent generations of radical educators. He is cited

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

communities, but also as an effective, powerful political force.

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

exhibit culturally hegemonic, exclusionary, and non-representational approaches to history, they

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

enable subjugated classes to perceive social injustices critically” (p. 102).

Other Progressive and Radical Theorists

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

self-definition in opposition to the "Other" (p. 231). Additionally, in response to various

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

own and other societies (Urban, 1978, p. x).

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-

Marxism” to counter pervasive neo-conservative and assimilationist ideas within traditional

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

legacy section, para. 4).

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

history is rarely taught in social studies curricula.

Progressive Views on Social Studies Education

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 notmerely a matter of infusing more information into a faulty premise, but ofreconstituting the conceptual systems that govern models of humanness and models ofbeing.... In both form and content, it signals the transcendence of a new worldcivilization. (Gordon, 1995, p. 184)

This cannot be accomplished through a contributions approach to the histories of marginalized

populations—a transformative approach to education must be taken. However, the introduction

of transformative knowledge is unlikely to be warmly received by the established power

structure.

Currently, meritocratic ideals perpetuate the marginalization of students who are

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

meritocratic paradigm is by its nature discriminatory.

According to King (1995), the introduction of transformative knowledge can expand

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,

members of this elite class constructed a non-egalitarian society in which systems of

domination flourished (Ross, 2000, pp. 57-58).

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

of marginalized students and the preponderance of Eurocentric ideas, as propagated in texts,

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

promote different politics to confront unequal distributions of power and wealth in

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

revitalize previous democratic education movements of people such as Counts. Giroux

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

modernity's democratic legacy section, para. 4).

A Neo-Conservative Opposition. Attempts at transforming education and implementing

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,

ethics, and politics section, para. 1).

Neo-conservatives tend to dismiss multicultural education and oppositional historical

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.

Currently, neo-conservative forces have been successful in popularizing a message in

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

the American populace (Banks, 2004).

The Progressive Response. According to Steinberg (2000), right-wing ideology speaks 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

meaning(s) of democracy (Mendel-Reyes, 1997, p. 233). Social studies is an interdisciplinary

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

progress, if at all (Giroux, 2000).

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

application of Banks' (2001) concept of contextualized discourse of relevant global issues in

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

society at large that are “inherently antidemocratic” (Marker, 1993, p. 144).

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)

explains, a contradiction exists in traditional interpretation of democratic education. Democracy

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,

critical inquiry pedagogy is necessary to facilitate student formation of oppositional knowledge

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

ideology and practices (Hursh & Ross, 2000, p. 53).

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

difficult to have a truly democratic classroom if one is attempting to force a perspective on

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

power distributions. These undemocratic hierarchical power relationships contribute to lower

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-

12 classrooms (p. 13).

The Application of Critical Inquiry Pedagogy

As reported by Bartolome (2004), critical inquiry pedagogies have been successfully

implemented in classroom environments and have contributed to a reduction in the gap in

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

using critical inquiry pedagogies credited them as contributors to an increase in student

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

implementation of critical pedagogies (pp. 286-288).

Critical inquiry pedagogies serve as way to socially empower and engage traditionally

marginalized students in social studies curricula (Fecho, 2000). Accordingly, a historically

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

of the “victors rather than the vanquished” (Banks, 2001, p. 11).

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:

This pattern involves a deliberate sharing of power and non-hierarchical positioning ofonce dominant and once marginalized voices in the discourse and enactment of post-Eurocentric schooling. Within such a context, it may one day be possible to disrupt thestratification of achievement and success by race, class, and gender. (p. 504)

The elimination of sociocultural stratification in academic achievement is a primary goal of

critical inquiry pedagogy (Fecho, 2000).

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

in society as it is currently constructed or to give students the tools to be effective advocates

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

as a homogenizing force against the efforts of progressives.

Conceptually social studies education is at the cusp of a reformation. Steinberg (2000)

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

assimilationist knowledge is pervasive because it supports “the perspectives and assumptions of

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

(What is critical pedagogy section, para. 3).

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

creation of critical perspectives through inquiries of established conventions throughout various

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

implementation of critical pedagogies and possess neo-conservative or assimilationist political

perspectives (Assuming a counter hegemonic stance section, para. 5). Moreover, teachers must

denounce injustices that marginalize large portions of their student bodies and create

responsive and empowering educational contexts (Assuming a counter hegemonic stance

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).

A key to societal reformation is culturally relevant teaching, “a pedagogy that empowers

students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural referents to

empower knowledge” (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 178). Traditional curricula reinforce

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

the fabric of traditional social studies curricula.

Conclusions

As demonstrated by Vavrus (2002) and Banks (1995), incremental approaches to

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

pedagogy serves as a method of counteracting this established paradigm through a

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

injustices (Lowen, 1995). Additionally, instead of approaching the knowledge construction of

students through a top down patriarchal structure, critical inquiry pedagogy places the

construction of radical ideals in the hands of the students (Graff, 2000).

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,

2004). Furthermore, Giroux posits, educators bear a responsibility as public intellectuals to

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

historical legacy of American imperialism.

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

through critical inquiry pedagogy. An examination of traditional knowledge in social studies

education illustrates the failing of curricula as currently constructed to improve the status of

democracy within the U.S.:

Democracy is a form of government that recognizes the right of the people to take partin, directly or indirectly, controlling their political institutions.... It also describespractices of society as a whole that enlarge opportunities for people and that placeemphasis 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

contribute to the maintenance of the status quo (Ross, 2000).

Recommendations for Practice

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:

1. Facilitate constructivist approaches to knowledge construction. Independent learners can sift

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

reciprocal co-participatory learning environments and encourage students to construct their

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

thrived (Hursh & Ross, 2000).

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

the construction of democratic ideas of equity and social justice.

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 NegroEducation, 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.

Bartolome, L. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing perspectiveteachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97-122. Retrieved November 11, 2004from H.W. Wilson education index database.

Bowers, C. (1967). The ideologies of progressive education in American educational thought:The new democracy. History of Education Quarterly, 7(4), 452-473.

Brown, R. (1999). Middle school social studies and the cognitive revolution. The ClearingHouse, 72(6), 327-330.

Cervetti, G., Pardales, M., & Damico, J. (2001, April). A tale of differences: Comparing thetraditions, perspectives, and educational goals of critical reading and critical literacy.Reading Online , 4 (9). Retrieved December 14, 2004 fromhttp://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/cervetti/index.html

Clark, E., & Lutzenberger, J. (1999, Fall). Minding the gap: Introduction to radical teachingpractice. Radical Teacher, 26, 2-6. Retrieved November 11, 2004 from H.W. Wilsoneducation index database.

Cohen, J. (1993) Constructing race at an urban high school: In their minds, their mouths, theirhearts. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender inUnited 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 IllinoisUniversity 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 criticalconsciousness. 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 pedagogyof democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 31-47. Retrieved November11, 2004, from H.W. Wilson education index database.

Gordon, B. (1995). Knowledge construction, competing critical theories, and education. In J.Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 184-199). Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.

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 Schooland 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. InD. Hursh & E. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for socialchange (pp. 1-23). London: Falmer Press.

King, J. (1995) Culture-centered knowledge: Black studies and cultural transformation, andsocial 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. GabriolaIsland, 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 gotwrong. New York: Touchstone.

Marker, P. (1993). Not only by our words: Connecting the pedagogy of Paulo Freire with thesocial studies classroom. Social Science Record, 30(1), 77-90.

Mendel-Reyes, M. (1997). Radical democratic education. Review of Education, Pedagogy, andCultural Studies, 19(2), 224-244.

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21(8),5-14.

Prillelntensky, I. & Nelson, G. (2002) Educational settings. In I. Prilleltensky & G. Nelson(Eds.), Doing psychology critically (pp. 92-105). London: Palgrave.

Ross, E. (2000). Redrawing the lines: The case against traditional social studies instruction. InD. Hursh & E. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for socialchange (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.

Swartz, E. (1993). Multicultural education: Disrupting patterns of supremacy in schoolcurricula, practices and pedagogy. The Journal of Negro Education, 62(4), 493-506.

Urban, W. (1978). Preface. In G. Counts, Dare the school build a new social order?Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Vavrus, M. (2002). Transforming the multicultural education of teachers: Theory, research,and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

26

27