Compare and Contrast

Compare and Contrast

Compare and Contrast

Donald Pierce

ERD-802

Grand Canyon University

July 21, 2013

Compare and Contrast

Introduction

"Under the surface of contradiction, lies similarity" - Asif Jordan. Upon reading the articles A National Perspective on the Effects of High-Stakes Testing and Standardization on Elementary Social Studies Marginalization by Fitchett and Heafner and Social Studies Education in the Age of Testing and Accountability by Groce and Webeck, it is quite clear that there are many similarities. Both of the studies were conducted by their respected authors because the authors wanted to show that the No Child Left Behind policy has had a negative impact on the teaching of social studies. Both articles posed similar questions for their research to try to answer. The questions include how much time is spent teaching social studies, did No Child Left Behind affect this amount of time, and how have teachers adapted the teaching of social studies because of No Child Left Behind (Groce and Webeck, 2006). These articles can be compared and contrasted in multiple ways, but three different ways will be used for these two articles. These ways are by a comparison of the research questions posed for the studies, a comparison of the sample populations used, and the results of each study.

Research Questions

In the first category of the comparison and contrasting of the articles, a comparison of the research questions posed for the studies, the questions that the author posed to the readers and to themselves. In both articles, the authors present multiple questions which they hope to answer through their research. In the first article, A National Perspective on the Effects of High-Stakes Testing and Standardization on Elementary Social Studies Marginalization by Fitchett and Heafner, the authors asked questions about the decisions made by school and school district leadership in regards to the allocation of time for social studies in elementary school. The authors' questions focus on why the decision to reduce social studies in elementary are proposed and accepted (Fitchett and Heafner, 2010). The questions include: To what extent was social studies instruction afforded less instructional time in K-5 classrooms compared to other subjects from 1987 to 2004?; To what extent did instructional time in elementary social studies change since the inception of No Child Left Behind?; To what extent did the variability of reported social studies instructional time change since the inception of No Child Left Behind?.

In the second article, Social Studies Education in the Age of Testing and Accountability by Groce, and Webeck, the authors ask similar questions to those asked by Fitchett and Heafner. The authors ask how No Child Left Behind has affected the teaching of social studies (Groce and Webeck, 2006) . The difference between the questions asked in the articles are that the second article asked more about the effects that No Child Left Behind has had on social studies while the first article focused more on the decisions behind these decisions to reduce social studies time.

Sample Populations

In regards to the populations used in each of the studies, all four of the authors used very different sample population in their studies. In the article A National Perspective on the Effects of High-Stakes Testing and Standardization on Elementary Social Studies Marginalization by Fitchett and Heafner, states that there was a sample population used, but gives no details about the number of participants (Fitchett and Heafner, 2010). It only states that the population is from an unlisted number of public school teachers chosen from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) Schools and Public School Teacher Staffing Survey. In all three