Transforming Middle School Social Studies Free

In this section, I review the relevant literature from the AMLE, multicultural education, and, James A. Banks’ four multicultural approaches. In addition, I will discuss how textbooks are a resource to implement the C3 in a history classroom.

The AMLE has affirmed five essential attributes focusing on three categories that are the definitive standard that middle schools need to be effective (Bishop & Harrison, 2021). The essential attributes are responsive, challenging, empowering, equitable, and engaging. Bishop and Harrison (2021) suggested that administration and faculty use contextual factors to make decisions for the betterment of the student body and the school environment. This should lead to students taking ownership of their learning by being held to higher expectations. Teachers, crucial to implementing the essential attributes, should provide opportunities to engage students in relevant, participatory, and socially just lessons in their learning environments. Through these essential attributes, students could develop skills and content knowledge to make positive contributions to the communities they live in. Bishop and Harrison (2021) stated, “[AMLE] … believes … [the] five essential attributes can be realized and achieved” (p. 17) the focus categories of (1) culture and community, (2) curriculum, instruction and assessment and (3) leadership and organization.

Paired with the AMLE’s attributes and characteristics, multicultural education (ME), if implemented in state and local curricula, could reflect the diversity of the students learning in those classrooms. Banks (2020) defined ME as an idea, an educational reform movement, and a process (p. 13). Banks explained that as an idea, multicultural education insists on equal opportunity for all students to learn in schools but to understand that some students have a better chance of learning due to the structure of school systems. In describing multicultural education as a reform movement, the emphasis should not just be on the transformation of the curricula, but it should also be on the schools as institutions and again emphasis on all students having the opportunity to learn. However, for the third part of the definition, process, Banks argues that this will never be realized or at least not fully attained so multicultural educators need to continue to work for equality in all educational systems. Making a similar comment as Banks, Bennett (2019), in Comprehensive Multicultural Education Theory and Practice, stated that “making reality fit into ideas of multicultural education are not always easy” (p. 18). However, she proposed four interactive dimensions associated with multicultural education. Beginning with curriculum reform, or the process of using inquiry in classrooms, teachers and students could rethink about traditionally held curriculum standards and narratives. Teaching toward social justice would need to include the use of inquiry to learn content and have productive discussions about inequitable social structures while introducing equitable pedagogy to create an environment that is culturally responsive. Lastly, teachers should display multicultural competence or the ability to become comfortable with students, faculty, and families that are racially and culturally different. For both authors, the goal of multicultural education has been to transform the classroom curriculum to more culturally responsive lessons and also give teachers practical applications to become multicultural educators (Banks, 2020; Bennett, 2019).

Scholars noted that transformational multicultural classrooms are based on democratic ideas and civic education (Banks, 2005; Bennett, 2019; Castro et. al, 2012). Teachers that infuse ME and ethnic content into lessons have created an environment where new assumptions and perspectives define what it means to be an American and live in a diverse society (Banks, 1999, 2020). Researchers have focused on the nuts and bolts of how and why to implement ME for decades (Au, 2009; Banks, 1999, 2020; Castro et. al., 2012; Gay, 2010; Hammond, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Suzuki, 1984). Teachers implementing ME aspects in classrooms usually view their subject area content as lacking in diversity. Those teachers have been willing to create learning opportunities that include inclusive content rather than the mainstream narrative (Banks, 1999, 2020; Gay, 2010; Hammond, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Milner, 2016). To be more culturally responsive, teachers need to use strategies that allow for cultural and ethnic content to be included. Like any new strategy, theory, or framework, teachers need to understand and successfully implement those into the classroom to benefit students.

To implement ME and diverse content into the social studies classroom, Banks and McGee-Banks (1999) introduced levels to help teachers integrate it into their units and lessons. In the social studies methods text Teaching Strategies for the Social Studies: Decision-Making and Citizen Action, Banks and McGee-Banks (1999) specifically stated that social studies courses need to be taught from a “diverse ethnic and cultural perspective rather than primarily or exclusively from the points of view of mainstream American historians and writers” (pp. 213–214). In the text, the authors described four approaches for teachers to use as practical approaches to use in the social studies classroom, contributions, additive, transformative, and social action. These approaches could be used by beginning or seasoned teachers to transform curriculum from status quo to an integration of ethnic and cultural content. The contributions approach is level one and includes heroes, holidays, and discrete cultural elements. Level two or the additive approach includes content, concepts, themes, and perspectives added to the curriculum without changing its structure. Although Banks and McGee-Banks stated that the next two approaches differ greatly from the first two, it is imperative that teachers do not stop after implementing the first two approaches in the classroom. They also realized that teachers, especially new teachers, cannot implement these levels over night, but insisted teachers progress to reach level four. The transformational and the social action approaches work together to change

The social action approach is an extension of the transformational approach by adding a requirement for students to make decisions and to take actions about social justice issues learned in the social studies classroom.

Trying to implement the AMLE, ME, and Banks’ approaches while following mandated state and local curriculum can seem like a daunting process. However, all the standards, dimensions, and approaches can be implemented within the C3 framework, which can make the implementation less stressful for the teachers. The College, Career, and Civic Life (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013) or C3 is an inquiry framework from the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) that uses “concepts, facts, tools, disciplinary and content literacies” to successfully complete an inquiry in a [social studies] classroom (Herczog, 2013, p. 17). Consisting of four dimensions, students experience developing compelling and supporting questions for the inquiry in dimension one. During this dimension, teachers usually create a hook and present a compelling question for the unit. For the second dimension, required curriculum from state, district, or department, is taught for the unit. Dimensions three and four are student-centered and require the use of primary sources to verify content (from dimension two) and use the sources as evidence to answer the teacher-created compelling question (from dimension one). Finally dimension four requires students to create a plan and “take action” on an issue related to dimensions two and three, usually a social justice issue. This is an informed action and is only facilitated by the teachers but entirely created by the students.

For teachers to use the C3 and implement AMLE, ME, and Banks’ approaches, the common thread in teacher’s classroom is usually the required district textbook. The textbook is usually the first resource teachers go to for teaching social studies/history content. As Edwards (2008) explained, “Textbooks are our professional community’s oldest classroom resource, yet, surprisingly, our least examined” (p. 39). He stated that using textbooks can be a turning point in a student’s ability to learn not only the “what” of history but the “how” of history. He encouraged a critical eye of the textbooks where students are engaged in learning the background and suggested, “Old and new textbooks can be used in the classroom as a resource for developing student’s disciplinary understanding of history” (p. 39). Although critical of teachers that rely on the textbook too much, Loewen (2010) did not want teachers to throw it out the window, so to speak, but use it in a critical way. Teachers need to understand the flaws in textbooks and teach the students how to identify those flaws. Using relevance to the present, questioning, critical thinking, investigation, uncoverage, and historical thinking skills are just some of the supplemental aspects of adding in the classroom while using a textbook. He advocated that teachers do history rather than being chained to the textbook and bring outside references and perspectives into the topics taught. Roberts (2014) agreed that textbooks have problems but stated, “I believe the most important shift we can make in textbook analysis is to begin moving from the theoretical focus of these studies to developing more practical guides for teachers” (p. 61).

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological qualitative study was to describe the experiences of middle school social studies teachers using the assigned district textbook to implement the C3 inquiry framework, dimensions of multicultural education, including culturally responsive teaching, and James A. Banks’ multicultural approaches. Some AMLE standards were also highlighted in the study. Teachers had an instructional coach that led a professional development prior to creation of the unit. The instructional coach was available to answer questions before, during, and after the C3 textbook unit.

This research compared the lived experiences of two middle school social studies teachers that share similar encounters and judgments concerning the use of the textbook, experiencing training by an instructional coach, and developing a multicultural, culturally responsive unit. The fundamental question addressed by this study was, how does instructional coaching help young teachers use the textbook and still develop a multicultural culturally responsive teaching environment in the social studies classroom?

Phenomenology “attempts to approach a lived experience with a sense of ‘newness’ of elicit rich and description data” (Creswell, 2007, p. 269). The main tool of data collection in phenomenology is a long in-depth interview. This process allows the researcher to develop questions to “evoke a comprehensive account of the person’s experience” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 114). Transcendental phenomenology “emphasizes subjectivity and discovery of the essences of experience and provides a systematic and disciplined methodology for the derivation of knowledge” (Moustakes, 1994, p. 45). The primary processes that assist in the derivation of knowledge from the researcher in transcendental phenomenology require “epoche,” phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and intuitive integration (Creswell, 2007; Moustakes, 1994). The researcher writes a textual and structural description of each participant before completing a textural-structural synthesis for the participants.

For this study, certified social studies teachers employed in a Midwestern state public school districts agreed to an interview regarding textbook use, ME, culturally responsive teaching, and the use of a C3 unit in the classroom. I asked the teachers to participate based on four criteria: (a) using only their assigned history textbook, (b) teaching at the middle school level, (c) have five years or less teaching experience in a Midwestern state, and (d) attend a professional development with the instructional coach (the researcher) concerning C3 and textbook use.

The middle school teachers, participating in this study, held bachelor’s degrees in secondary education–social studies 9–12 and teaching certification in social sciences 9–12 and social science 5–9. Both completed their student teaching in a high school. One had only taught middle school and the other had taught in middle school and high school as practicing teachers. The 9–12 certification included United States history, world history, economics, geography, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The–5–9 certification included United States history, world history and geography.

This study was part of a larger study that included a high school teacher, but I excluded the data collected from that teacher from this study. I initially contacted 25 participants through their school email, which is published on the school websites. In the initial email, I attached the details of the research project and the copy of the informed consent for review. The participants had the option to mail or email the consent form back to me, and I arranged a phone interview. Four participants responded to the initial email sent. Three were middle school and one was high school. The third middle school teacher opted not to participate in this project.

To enhance the trustworthiness of the study, teacher participants agreed to contribute to the research creating a purposeful sample. In a purposeful sampling, “subjects are selected because they reflect the average person, situation, or instance of phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998, p. 62). The researcher should discover, understand, and gain insight into a situation and select a sample from which the most can be learned (Merriam, 1998). Thus, I purposefully chose two middle school teachers for this study.

Two middle school teachers agreed to the interview after completing the professional development with the instructional coach (researcher) and implementing the C3 unit/lessons in their classroom. Of the two middle school teachers, one was male, and one was female. The male teacher was 28 years old and had taught for 5 years. The female teacher was 23 years old and had taught for 2.5 years. Both teachers self-identified as Caucasian. Both teachers received their bachelor’s degree in social studies education at a regional university in a Midwestern state. One teacher had received a master’s degree in administration, and one teacher was enrolled in a regional university to receive a master’s degree in administration. Both teachers worked in suburban area school districts that have over 20,000 students in the districts and teach history classes. Both teachers were involved in sponsoring extracurricular activities, are members of school committees, and coaching. Both taught the textbook C3 unit during the COVID-19 pandemic and taught with a mixture of face-to-face, hybrid, and online instruction.

The methods used to collect data were identical for each teacher and included: an audiotaped interview, probing questions for clarification, and note taking. “The phenomenological interview involved an informal, interactive process and utilizes open-ended comments and questions” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 114). After the conclusion of the interviews, I transcribed each interview and wrote textural descriptions (or horizons), structural descriptions (analysis of horizons) and the textural-structural synthesis or the structural themes developed through phenomenological reductions. (See the discussion section for the textural-structural syntheses.) After I generated the themes from the interviews, I merged the textural and structural descriptions “into a unified statement of the essences of the experience of the phenomenon as a whole” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 100).

The teachers set a time to complete a professional development session about the AMLE standards, dimensions of ME, including CRT and Bank’s approaches which collectively became the practical guide for each teacher in the study. I held each professional development session via Google Meet, and each teacher chose a time and date prior to the creation of their C3 textbook unit. The 1-hour professional development session was via one-to-one instruction. The instructional coach taught by direct instruction covering the practical guide that included the AMLE, ME, dimensions of ME, C3, and Banks’ approaches. After direct instruction, the teachers asked questions for clarification. We spent the rest of the hour discussing the teacher’s textbook chapter unit and how to properly divide it to fit the C3. The teachers created a rough outline of the unit as they asked questions on how to implement the C3 and ME dimensions. I reminded the teachers of my email if they had any other questions regarding the unit.

The teachers also arranged an interview date and time after they completed the professional development and implementation of the C3 unit. The purpose of the interviews was to discover how instructional coaching helps young teachers use the textbook and still develop a ME, culturally responsive environment in the social studies classroom. I explained that pseudonyms would appear in the article and their place of employment would not be disclosed. During the interview, the participants responded to questions and probing questions about their experience with the professional development, CRT, and the C3 textbook unit.

In the results section, I explore the interviews of the two middle school teacher participants. As discussed previously, the purpose of this transcendental phenomenological qualitative study was to describe middle school teachers’ experience using an instructional coach to help use textbooks and still develop a multicultural, culturally responsive teaching environment in the social studies classroom.

The phenomenological design “attempts to approach a lived experience with a sense of newness of elicit rich and descriptive data” (Creswell, 2007, p. 269). A transcendental phenomenological design “emphasizes subjectivity and discovery of the essences of experience and provides a systematic and disciplined methodology for the derivation of knowledge” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 45). I analyzed the data to produce the essence of the phenomenon.

From the third step of transcendental phenomenological research design, imaginative variation is used to develop textural descriptions, structural descriptions, and textural-structural synthesis of the participants. Textural descriptions are exact words taken from the interview process and are conveyed by the researcher. The researcher only reports the participants’ experience without including analysis. Structural descriptions are evaluations of the textural descriptions where the textural-structural synthesis describes the meaning and essences of the phenomenon.

For the purposes of this analysis, I build on Robert’s (2014) suggestion of “developing … [a] practical guide for teachers” (p. 61). Referring to Bennett (2019) and Bishop and Harrison (2021), teachers used the conceptual frameworks of the AMLE standards and the four dimensions of ME to start transitioning to a multicultural educator. To implement ME into the classroom, teachers followed the practical guidance of Bank’s four approaches and the four dimensions of C3 to implement culturally responsive lessons into the classroom. The interviews from both teachers demonstrated the transition to a multicultural classroom. Teachers specifically discussed Bank’s approaches and how they implemented the C3 dimensions. Both teachers discussed in detail Bennett’s dimension of equity pedagogy concerning culturally responsive teaching (CRT). For this study, I presented teachers with the Gay’s (2010) definition of CRT which stated that CRT is:

CRT is situated at the center of teaching, not as a peripheral. From this practical guide, I conducted a study with middle school teachers that focused on instructional coaching to guide teachers to use textbooks to transform the middle school social studies curriculum toward a more culturally responsive one.

Adeline us a United States history teacher who teaches regular education classes, class within a class (CWC), and honors classes. She used CRT as a framework in her classes stating, “I want all my students to see themselves in my United States history class. I never want anyone left out.” She uses her assigned textbook, adopted by the school district, to create a C3 for a unit over the Jacksonian period. Explaining her previous experience with C3 and use of textbooks, she stated:

As a practicing teacher, she has prepared and implemented IDMs for her world history class, government class, and United States 8th grade history class.

She thinks the textbook is “the devil” and it “shouldn’t be used as much.” In fact, “I never used the textbook before this C3 unit.” However, she admitted, “I have never thought of using a textbook in any of my experiences.” After agreeing to complete the study, she was very hesitant to use the textbook for a C3 and CRT and was convinced it would not work. “It won’t work because it has limited information about minorities in history or wrong information.”

She started developing her Jacksonian unit by looking through the chapter and sections of the history textbook. “I noticed there were more primary and secondary sources than I expected.” She created all four dimensions using the text and added, “I used a YouTube video of a mock court case with Jackson as the hook in dimension one.” Adeline used different instructional strategies and activities to have the students interact with the content in dimension two. “I used jigsaw, mind maps, content literacy, and teacher talk but organized it around the four subsections of the textbook. I used the primary and secondary sources from each section for dimension three” and then moved the students to dimension four to “compare the past to the present.” Students began “working on communicating conclusions and implementing their action to the problems” they described in “whole class discussion” in dimension four. “This was not as boring as I thought it was going to be” she stated, “The students retained the information better than in other units, maybe because the C3 allows more scaffolding. The textbook was on the students reading level and the sources fit in with the C3 sections really well.” She added, “I already like the C3 framework, but I now have a more positive view on using the textbook with it after implementing it.” She confessed she will use the textbook more frequently “especially when I do not have resources for a section or chapter.” She then warned, “You really need to know and understand the C3 before you do this. Professional development would be best because just reading the free C3 textbook online is not helpful. Having someone (the instructional coach) that can model C3 for or with you is best.” The professional development prior to the C3 textbook unit “provided collaboration and that helped implement culturally responsive teaching with what I had available to me. I didn’t have to go outside of the text to do both.” Having the professional development “also provided a knowledge base raising awareness to look for the culturally responsiveness in the text. Having modeling, demonstrations, examples and then a framework showed me I can use this (C3 and CRT) with any unit regardless of resources.” She continued, “I will say that this needs to be intentional when planning the C3 with the textbook. But creating the C3 was easier than a regular unit, and I put it together in 30 minutes.”

Adeline discussed that her students “caught on to the required content presented in the textbook about different groups of people, however, one student asked the class, ‘Why does it say nothing about the Trail of Tears?’ and in another class a different student asked, “Why have reservations when it’s wrong?” This part in the C3 unit “highlighted issues” for the students to ask questions about the lack of information about the Trail of Tears, and Adeline stated, “that is why culturally responsive teaching is so important.” This lack of content drew my attention because my students had to acknowledge that lack of voices (Native Americans) and my students addressed that in our whole class discussions. She discussed that her students had prior experience asking themselves, who is being left out of the narrative? but “this was exciting that they picked up on it without me prompting them.”

She continued discussing how her textbook connected well to the C3 framework and the use of inquiry along with CRT,” if the teacher worked through the chapter using the dimensions and CRT, it is an effective unit/lesson.” She thought using the textbook C3 unit created an environment where the students worked better with the primary sources because it was not “forced on them—rather than saying and telling them we are doing primary sources; it was more natural from the textbook, and they were using historical thinking skills working through C3 without me prompting them.” Adeline stated that the textbook C3 unit “enhanced the incorporation of current events and the use of culturally responsive teaching.” She liked how the C3 provided a “framework and lens” as she looked through the textbook in a “different way” and “utilized it to create high level lessons without extra resources being needed.” She added that “C3 worked best with my CWC classes,” where the percentage of special education students was very high. At the end of the interview, she stated:

She also said, “writing this way [for the compelling question] will help them (students) with their English state testing exam. Using the textbook and primary sources within the sections allowed the students to use their evidence correctly.”

The structures that manifested when asking Adeline to implement a textbook C3 and CRT in the classroom were hesitancy, successful implementation with all levels of learners, and mandatory professional development. Adeline’s hesitancy came from discussions with trusted sources that believed textbooks were not fit to be used in history classrooms. Professors, coteachers, and work mentors have made comments about students not being able to learn from the text. Therefore, she did not use it unless it was for an assignment with a substitute teacher. When discussing this, she had valid reasons for not using the textbook and cited, lack of diversity, misinformation, boring, and too easy. Although her hesitancy was a factor in creating a negative outlook on the textbook C3, she completed all dimensions and only used one YouTube video in dimension one to hook the students into the lesson. She thought she would need many more resources to implement an inquiry, but she was surprised to find she did not. Adeline taught the same subject but different levels of learners throughout the day. She was surprised that the C3 textbook unit was best for the CWC course (where she will have up to 18 students with individualized education plans or IEPs). The organization of the C3 framework (dimensions one through four) allowed the students a different way to learn from the textbook, and she felt the CWC courses “got” the material better because with each dimension, the content of facts, concepts, etc. is discussed over and over for different reasons. For dimension one, the hook, the students respond to questions about the topic and are introduced to the content. In dimension two, the students focus on the content objectives where the teacher uses different instructional strategies and activities to accomplish the objectives. In dimension three, the students use the textbook to look at the primary and secondary sources that are separate from the written content in each section but are related to the content in dimension two. In dimension four, the students write a PEEL (a writing strategy to develop a claim and then evidence to back up the claim) to answer the compelling question, how well did Andrew Jackson promote democracy? Students must use the content from dimension two and the primary resources in dimension three to answer the compelling question by developing a claim and using the evidence. In dimension four, the students connect the past to the present, find the problem in the community, organize a plan, and implement it.

From organizing the textbook this way, the students are working with the content and sources so much throughout the unit that their summative exam and PEEL show retention was a little higher than previous chapters. By using this format, the honor students began to ask higher order questions about missing history concepts in the text and moral questions about Jackson’s policies toward the Native Americans and the CWC courses benefited from the consistency of using the text.

After completing the textbook C3, Adeline was more comfortable with the unit and lessons she created to implement in the classroom. Looking through the textbook sections of the Jacksonian chapter, she had an organized format and lens to develop daily lessons. The organization of the textbook with primary and secondary sources helped her put the unit together faster than it would have with a regular unit. Working with different academic levels of classes she teaches she realized that the C3 textbook unit fit with all levels of learners and had built in differentiation. She was surprised to see how the framework using only the textbook fit with all her classes.

Because she had prior experience and the required professional development for C3 and CRT from the study, the textbook C3 was a good unit but she made sure to note several times that teachers need professional development prior to attempting this. She acknowledged she knows about the C3 textbook online, published from the National Council for the Social Studies, but explained that just reading it is not helpful to implement it. Having a professional development and then examples to look over or activities to experience the C3 puts the teacher in a better situation to complete a C3 or IDM, but especially when trying to make a C3 from the textbook. Adeline never asked for help during the implementation of her C3 textbook unit. She only asked questions during the professional development and was confident that she did not need any guidance after that initial meeting.

Thor started his interview stating, “I have had prior experience with C3 [during] my second year of teaching in a seventh-grade world history class.” Thor continued discussing the main points of the four dimensions in the unit about Ancient China. “I was helped by my former methods professor when she paired two 30-hour students with me for observation and I really liked the response from the students as we progressed through the C3 of the compelling question, did China make the world flat?” Thor particularly liked reading the daily journals of the students as they would respond to the same compelling question every day and “the student’s writing changed throughout the unit. The more they learned, the more they explained and backed up the compelling question.” Although Thor had great success with the C3 in his early years of teaching, he stated, “I am very hesitant” when attending the professional development, “of using the history textbook with C3 because the book is not the best resource for the students.”

Thor created his textbook C3 unit about Alexander the Great. When he started the process of planning, “I looked closely at the outer parts of the textbook pages, you know, those parts that had extra stories about minority groups or individuals, artifacts, art, or everyday life that are usually in boxes or different colors. After looking through this chapter, I realized I had more than I could use in the time frame of the curricular map and that was surprising.” Thor decided to pose the question, “Is Alexander the Great, great?” as the compelling question. “I wanted it to be a question where the students had to break down Alexander the Great’s rule and really have to use content and the evidence to answer the question.” For dimension one, “I don’t think I was supposed to do this, but I used a Metallica song for my hook.” The students annotated the song and answered questions. The reaction to this was very positive from my students. Dimension two was the content and I broke it down in sections of the textbook. We focused on the positives and negatives of Alexander the Great and I used the jigsaw method and graphic organizers to collect our data. As we had a whole class discussion over content, some students were saying the rule was bad and some were saying it was good and they were using evidence to back it up. They had started answering the compelling question. “It gave them a lens to look through during every dimension. They caught on to that fast.” He was very excited to discuss the reactions of the students. “It was very engaging, and I noticed those students that didn’t usually participate in class for one reason or another, really liked this way of teaching and got into it.” Dimension three concentrated on two specific documents pulled from the chapter.

The documents were two historians’ reactions to Alexander the Great.

He stressed:

Talking about the student’s experience, Thor discussed the classes as a whole, rather than hour one, hour two, and so on.

He found the C3 textbook unit easy to use because it was easy to guide the students through the dimensions.

Thor discussed some of the COVID issues that he had to deal with when creating the unit, so he scaled back dimension four because of social distancing, no guests in the classrooms, and students staying in the classrooms from bell to bell.

He added a different twist to dimension four from his past experiences.

From the whole class discussions, Thor stated:

He made the comment that the textbook C3 allowed the teacher to bring out culturally responsive pedagogy through the sources in the text. He discussed how the students connected Alexander the Great’s acceptance of Persian culture. He also discussed that students were bringing up concepts like “tolerance” and “accepting people different than yourself” as they moved through dimension two and three. “The textbook had a wealth of information that allowed culturally responsive teaching to flow naturally so we could have those tougher conversations by comparing content first.” Thor liked that the students brought out these topics in the class discussions and they could discuss more current events through comparison rather than divisive attitudes from the media/news.

Although hesitant at the beginning of the study, Thor changed his mind. “I never thought to pair so many instructional strategies with the textbook.” He admitted, “Teachers can find readings/art in the textbooks that align to curriculum but include diverse groups and different cultures. I think teachers get caught up in the content too much and gloss over the diverse resources in the text.” From his point of view with this experience:

The instructional coaching coupled with prior knowledge “pushed” him “outside the norm because no one used C3 in their classes where I work.” He felt like instructional coaching was “the guide on the side” and it really helped having that time prior to the implementation because dimension four was “easier in a COVID situation because the coach made me think of community in a different way so I could follow the restrictions and the “kids in other social studies classes saw more information about Alexander the Great than just a worksheet because we followed the C3.” It was great to “get a summary of C3 and how it worked with the textbook, then break the chapter up into chunks (dimensions). I was given examples to think about, then I could do it on my own.” Thor did not ask for any help during the implementation of the C3 textbook unit. He felt confident after the initial professional development to complete it all himself. Thor confessed:

Focusing on the assessment after the textbook C3 unit was over he continued, “Students learned the content better. I think because they liked and enjoyed it, especially going through the dimensions.” Two most important take-aways from the experience were:

The last thing that Thor said as he finished the interview, “I did this in my online class too and it went well because they had all the resources in one place.”

Thor’s structural description consisted of hesitancy, student reaction to the unit, and reflection. Thor was hesitant with the textbook C3 although he had independently taught C3s successfully in the past. Like the other teacher, he thought the textbook did not offer sufficient material to teach the students. After the C3 professional development, he still was not convinced. As he worked through the dimensions, he saw the textbook in a different way and discovered that he had not planned enough days to look at all the primary or secondary sources available to him throughout the textbook. He was able to teach the students historiography and how to analyze historian’s claims in dimension three. He would have never used the sources in the text if not using the C3 dimensions. He saw the text as a new resource not the traditional manner of, read the section, do the questions, and repeat. The C3 textbook had worked in his class and worked well. He also saw the students using the textbook in a different way.

Discussing his student’s experience, Thor’s reaction was positive and exciting. Moving from hesitancy to recommending the C3 textbook framework was a major attitude change and one that was influenced by the reactions of the students. Although creating the C3 opened his eyes to using the text more often, it was not solidified until his students completed all the dimensions with engagement and academic growth. His student’s social study skills, dialogue, and comprehension increased from dimension one to dimension four. Students were the investigators, finding the answers, analyzing, or collecting data to answer the compelling question. He also noted that students were owning their claim about Alexander the Great and initiating discussion with their classmates. Those students were confident about their claim and if they felt classmates were leaving out key information, the textbook became a resource for them to back up their claims using content, sources, and dialogue with their peers. Because all the students had access to the textbook, everyone could follow along and then counter the speaker if necessary. Because this type of dialogue was not planned, Thor was very excited about the way the unit was headed. From the authentic assessments to classroom assessments, Thor was very pleased with the outcome and thought the students learned the objectives better than in prior units.

Through the process, Thor reflected on his teaching and had some thoughts for other teachers. Thor has been a very reflective teacher and was open to making changes in his teaching style for the students. He was also very aware that citizenship is at the top of the list for why social studies teachers need to give students opportunities to practice citizenship and democratic skills. He was very reflective about the C3 textbook unit. Because C3 is not a traditional way to teach through the textbook, Thor saw it as a better reference than he previously thought. He also was surprised how the students used the textbook too. He was reflective of his own bias against the textbook but also thought about giving advice to other teachers. In his experience, he had seen social studies teachers only concerned about content or curriculum maps. He shared that there are better ways of teaching than “lecture and notes, lecture, and notes,” then testing. He thought that teachers should use the textbook with different instructional strategies and activities. Using the C3 made him realize the textbook can be a good resource if used in an appropriate manner. It could be engaging for the students and when coupled with C3, teachers can focus on culturally responsive teaching, citizenship skills, reading, writing, and students taking ownership over their learning. However, he warned that teachers need to learn the C3 first before embarking on it. He learned through watching the students engage in the dimensions, teacher as the facilitator of learning is a better position to have than sage on the stage. He mentioned several times how the compelling/essential/central question is so important to have as a lens for the students. It gave them a reason to use the text in different ways to become investigators to find the answer. Thor said he will be using the C3 textbook strategy again to make units. He felt if resources are limited, this was a great solution, and it also could be converted to 1–1 or online learning very easily.

From the results section, both teacher participants answered, yes, you can use only a textbook to have a successful C3 inquiry while implementing Bank’s approaches and CRT in a social studies classroom. However, both stressed that an instructional coach should hold a professional development (specifically about C3) prior to implementing the unit. Each teacher expressed their own attitudes concerning the textbook C3 unit; however, definite commonalities emerged. I analyzed their interviews and identified three descriptive themes:

1. Teachers indicated to be prepared to execute the C3 instruction professional development is necessary prior to teaching the unit and engaging the students in inquiry.

2. Teachers indicated instruction and assessment could not be effective with the use of the textbook and no outside sources.

3. Teachers indicated the C3 unit added to their curriculum and using the content and sources from the textbook is a viable from of instruction for a multicultural classroom. Students also expressed a positive opinion of the unit.

Both participants expressed in their interview that before trying to create and incorporate a textbook C3 unit, teachers need instruction and examples to be successful. Both described trying to read the NCSS C3 text from the website and finding it difficult to put into practice. Both stated that the help they received from the instructional coach was beneficial to implement the inquiry and the CRT because of examples, explanations, and getting their questions answered. It gave them confidence to create the unit and they both agreed that it was easy to incorporate Bank’s approaches in the textbook unit. Neither of the teachers asked for help after the initial professional development of C3 and CRT. This confirmed the AMLE’s characteristic of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Both teachers did not feel ready to teach a C3 unit to transform their curriculum until after they attended the professional development. Bishop and Harrison, (2021) stressed that the AMLE wants to ensure that educators are prepared to teach middle school students not only in their content area but also “implement culturally and linguistically sustaining practices, demonstrate empathy while engaging students in significant and relevant academic experiences” (p. 42). Bennett (2019), in the dimension of equity pedagogy, wanted teachers to have a practical teaching style of cultural responsiveness to foster student achievement. After the professional development, both teachers seemed to meet each of the standards above by adopting the practical guidance to create their unit.

Both teachers indicated that students would not be able to “get” the information or do well on an assessment using the textbook with C3. However, both participants admitted that the textbook C3 unit worked. In fact, both were surprised that just shortly after beginning the unit student engagement was up and remained through dimension four. Their hesitancy faded after seeing their students engaged in the dimension one through four. One teacher noted that students not previously engaged in class really enjoyed the unit and worked through all dimensions. Both teachers noted that dimension four was where the students used their social studies skills and became more independent learners. Both teachers noticed their students comprehending the unit objectives better and one felt like they (the students) learned the material better than in previous chapters. Both teachers stated they felt like the students enjoyed this type of teaching with one admitting her special education students excelled with C3 dimensions and CRT. Both saw increased academic achievement from all classes on the authentic assessments or common assessments. The examples from the teachers indicated that they are practicing curriculum reform and equity pedagogy from the multicultural education conceptual framework. Teachers, although hesitant at first, developed the inquiry to guide the students through historical inquiry in dimension three of the C3 and discussed how students’ achievement increased overall, but also mentioned active participation with students currently not engaged in prior units. The teachers also implemented several characteristics and attributes from AMLE. By trusting in the multicultural contextual framework to create a more diverse classroom, the teachers are seeming to meet the responsive and empowering attributes. The teachers took all students into account and made the decision to implement the C3 in their classrooms. Teachers empowered students by using the C3 dimensions that require students to engage in primary sources and discuss different perspectives of their history content. Teachers met the culture and community characteristic by welcoming the students into an inclusive classroom evidenced by their unit.

Both teachers were completely surprised how well the textbook C3 went in their classes, (especially because the participants told the researcher that it would not work at the professional development meeting). One teacher even called teaching from the textbook the “devil.” One teacher mentioned it only took 30 minutes to create the entire unit, and the other teacher stated it was easy to create the C3 from the textbook. Both teachers mentioned how CRT was an easy add because of the framework and dimensions of the C3. The teachers could focus more on CRT and ethnic content because of the specific materials (e.g., sources, pictures) in the textbook. Both teachers also stated how surprised they were by the number of material (e.g., sources) in the text. Both participants had prior experience with C3 and IDMs in their college classes, student observations, or during the early years of teaching and stated they could use this framework with the textbook in more units in the future. By instituting the C3 framework and using all four dimensions, the teachers were able to implement most of Banks’ approaches (1–3). Through implementing all four dimensions, both teachers showed that they are moving toward curriculum reform, social justice, and an equitable pedagogy. Both teachers also were developing a multicultural competence by using the C3 framework and intentionally using CRT as the center of their planning.

There were several topics of interest from the results section. First, both teachers were able to successfully implement the C3 and CRT inquiry unit just using the textbook. Although many textbook analyses are critical of history textbooks, Roberts (2014) and Loewen (2010) saw benefit in using them with the right strategies and using supplemental information, like lesson plans from researchers. The two history teachers used their textbooks but no supplemental information/content as Roberts and Loewen recommended. Neither teacher indicated they needed outside information for the content (dimension two) or for the primary resources (dimension three) but added that the textbook was sufficient for implementing Bank’s four approaches and CRT in the classroom. According to Banks, the first approach could include discrete cultural elements while the second approach allowed teachers to add content, concepts, themes, and perspectives to the existing curriculum. Both teachers were able to accomplish both approaches by implementing each into dimension two from the C3 framework. They accomplished level three by implementing dimension three and using different perspectives from primary sources of diverse ethnic and cultural groups. Although both teachers successfully implemented dimension four of the C3 framework, only one successfully completed all four approaches from Banks and McGee-Banks (1999, 2005). From the analysis, the teachers seemed to be developing a multicultural classroom with an increased sense of competence with practical tools (C3 and approaches) to use in the classroom with all units. Both teachers stressed the importance of an instructional coach that can give examples of C3 and CRT, which in turn may have been a major reason the teachers were successful at the implementation and transformation of their curriculum.

I conducted this study in a Midwestern state and included middle school teachers. This type of research would not generalizable because there would be no guarantee the results would be the same and would occur in every situation. Participants might not accurately represent all social studies teachers because the methodology used does not require observations or any type of triangulation to determine the essence of the phenomenon. Because the methodology does not require triangulation, I could only assume their comments are accurate. Lastly, all participants that agreed to the study were from different school districts, graduated from the same social studies program, and had prior experience with C3. The teachers were in my social studies courses. Although the teachers were successful with this unit, it does not mean that the teachers adopted the practical guide, C3, or CRT as their conceptual framework. This study could not determine if the teachers, in fact, are still developing as multicultural educators.

This qualitative study of two social studies teachers identified several personal attitudes about the textbook C3 unit and becoming a multicultural educator. Although the conclusions found that both participants thought the textbook was a good instructional method for creating a C3 unit and implementing CRT, a further qualitative study with more participants and observations could provide a broader spectrum of the compatibility of the C3 framework and Bank’s approaches with the textbook. Furthermore, a study using urban, suburban, and rural schools with various years of teaching experience could be a better sample of teachers in the Midwestern state.

Acknowledgment: I have no conflicts of interest to disclose.