An Old Fad Of Great Promise Reverse Chronology History Teaching In Social Studies Classes

T
The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1
71
An Old Fad of Great Promise: Reverse Chronology History
Teaching in Social Studies Classes
Thomas Misco
Miami University
Nancy C. Patterson
Bowling Green State University
This article revisits and explores the promises and challenges of
reverse chronology history instruction within the social studies. In
response to student disinterest in social studies, changes in our
educational culture that often value content knowledge exclusively,
and marginalization of instructional time stemming from testing
burdens, reverse chronology curriculum design focuses on
connections, meaning, relationships between past and present, and
the harnessing of history’s explanatory powers for understanding
today and formulating normative decisions about the future.
Reverse chronology bridges more traditional chronological history
instruction in social studies classes and issues-centered learning.
Ultimately it serves as a pathway to ensure the aims and goals of
social studies education are consciously and deliberately realized.
Introduction
Social studies educators face many challenges to offering
relevance and meaning for students. They often encounter
conflicting cultures of education, whereby the university ideal of
rigorous, inquiry-based social studies teaching does not align with
the reality in classrooms (Leming, 1989). Many teachers still
primarily offer textbook-based classroom experiences that focus on
recitation with few opportunities for deliberation (Kahne et al.,
2000), while students too often perceive historical content as
detached from their interests, concerns, and problems, consistently
valuing other subjects over social studies (Chiodo & Byford, 2004;

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
72
Schug, Todd, & Beery, 1986). It also appears that social studies
has become increasingly marginalized in different phases of the
public school experience (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Doppen, Misco,
& Patterson, 2008; Misco, 2005; Rock et al., 2006).
For decades, a number of scholars have attempted to solve
this perennial problem with different pedagogical and curricular
approaches, but too often their innovative techniques reached far
ahead and failed to take into account the demands placed on
teachers to cover as much content as possible. As a result of these
demands, many social studies teachers default to a traditional
pedagogy that marches through content with scant hope of hitting
upon engaging ideas or events that provoke student interest and
engagement. More recently, perceived and real demands to
emphasize the acquisition of content knowledge, as well as high-
stakes exams and standardized curricula, have cumulatively
undermined innovative curricular designs, especially in schools
experiencing punitive mandates brought on by the No Child Left
Behind Act (Doppen, Misco, & Patterson, 2008).
The November 1971 issue of The Social Studies contained
a provocative strategy for social studies instruction that responded
to these challenges that still has not gained traction: teaching
history in reverse. In that issue, Pfannkuche cogently argued that
traditional chronological approaches to teaching history were ill-
equipped to effectively engage students. Instead, a reverse
chronology approach, whereby units begin with contemporary
issues and build connections to earlier events, could help solve the
problems of disengagement as well as improve student
achievement (Davis & Laushey, 1972). Beginning with current
events or societal problems and proceeding into the past is
certainly not a new idea (Frymier, 1955; Khazzaka, 1997). Starting
with an overarching or “big” idea or issue and departing into rich
historical terrain is a journey students ultimately remember and
find engaging (Thornton, 2005). Although “backwards” or
“reverse” approaches failed to gain widespread interest (Simpson,

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
73
1983), the current climate of education in our society offers new
and unique challenges to which reverse chronology can respond.
Student Perceptions of Social Studies Classes
The main rationale for revisiting an approach that appears
to be an also-ran is the current and troubling status of the social
studies as an unpopular subject. Given the entrenched negative
perceptions many students have of social studies education, it is no
surprise that they find little rationale for studying history
(Khazzaka, 1997) and many perceive history within social studies
classes to be irrelevant and boring (Chiodo & Byford, 2004;
Schug, Todd, & Beery, 1986). It appears that students are
frequently exposed to social studies classes that contain
disconnected ideas, dates, and facts, organized in such a way that
meaning is weak or non-existent. If student interest is dampened
with a sense of historical inevitability and a linear chronological
progression, students withdraw further and rekindling interest is an
even more daunting and difficult task (Pfannkuche, 1971).
Traditional historical progression may indeed account for a
large measure of the pervasive ennui among social studies
students. The present, as well as the future, can often seem quite
removed from a normal day’s social studies lesson. Attempts to
connect present and past through additive efforts, such as “current
event Fridays,” are often nested within a fatalistic assumption that
the amount of historical content demanding coverage will simply
not allow for present or future orientations and connections. An
important distinction to make at this point is that in social studies
education, history is of value insofar as it sheds light on present
day experiences and decisions. Simply learning history to make
connections to the past or master events that do not relate to
today’s issues is not consistent with the aims and goals of social
studies education (National Council for the Social Studies, 1994).
Integrating current events into units may arouse student

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
74
engagement due to established knowledge or interest, but often
these experiences are distinct from “normal” history days.
A chronological progression may employ primary
documents that fail to engage students if they are not connected to
student experiences, interests, or prior knowledge, which is more
of a risk if the teacher intrinsically values the historical over the
contemporary. In this case, instead of primary documents
generating inquiry and wonder, there is potential for students to
develop a distaste and avoidance for the subject (Barton, 2005).
The use of any historical content as an end, isolated and outside the
reach of inquiry, exacerbates students’ negative perceptions of
social studies as disconnected and therefore irrelevant. Although a
traditional chronological approach can certainly employ
substantive reflective inquiry, reverse chronology may position
inquiry-based departures into historical content more logically
from the point of view of a citizen, thereby requiring information
and examples that may inform a decision.
Students typically endure broad coverage of content with
few ideas, themes, or events developed in depth. Too often,
“matter of fact representations” (Chiodo & Byford 2004, p. 22)
dominate history-focused social studies instruction, thereby
reinforcing a sense of inevitability and minimizing any felt
difficulties that might propel students into inquiry (Dewey, 1933).
Although this is not necessarily linked to traditional chronological
instruction, we propose that reverse chronology can help disrupt
uncomplicated instruction and foster more occasions of doubt and
wonder. Even if powerful teaching strategies are employed within
individual lessons, it seems the way in which these lessons are
linked together as units might make all the difference for student
engagement and interest. Learning experiences which lack
meaningful connection to the present and reinforce student
demoralization contribute to a sense of banality that is heightened
when students have no clue where the information or story is
heading (Simpson 1983). Given these perennial problems, we

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
75
return to the idea of reverse chronology so as to move beyond the
“tyranny of time” (Sternberg, 1990, p. 901), whereby movement
through particular epochs is the primary fountainhead of curricular
decisions. Ultimately we seek a revitalized discussion and research
efforts on differing methods for organizing the teaching of history
within the social studies.
The Problem of Textbooks
History textbooks are often linear and unwieldy tomes that
expurgate interesting content. They are often impoverished and
lack complex treatment of causation, ignore controversy, and
convey a sense of certainty as they march through time (Loewen,
1995). Students find most textbooks boring, that they are often
overused in class (Chiodo & Byford, 2004), and they rarely help
create connections with the present (Loewen, 1995). Although
many modern textbooks contain links to supplemental information
available online, the nature of the textbook industry inhibits
coverage of alternative narratives, especially those that involve
controversy. Too often, textbooks habituate passive reading of a
singular narrative, with little opportunity to question that narrative.
Most do not include citations or any avenue by which students
might question sources of information. For many teachers,
textbooks have become repositories of facts that promote “over-
coverage” in often erroneous ways and incomprehensible ways
through “lifeless prose” (Paxton 1997, p. 323). In order to compete
for wide adoption among many states, textbook writers and
companies have successfully pandered to critics from all ends of
the political spectrum and in the process avoid anything offensive
or interesting, resulting in a form Ravitch (2003) called “thin
gruel” (p. 96). Textbooks also provoke distant relationships
between authors and readers (Paxton, 1997) and engender a sense
of omniscience, anonymity, and authority.

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
76
The Timeliness of Reverse Chronology
Given the pervasive role and profound effect of textbook
use, as well as the connection to chronological course designs,
there is a clear need for alternative approaches to organizing and
selecting content within unit design (Chiodo & Byford, 2004).
Moreover, both students and teachers need to engage in critical
readings of textbooks and recognize their fallibility as only one of
many potential sources of knowledge. Perhaps this brings us back
to the oft-posed question “why do we have to learn this?” This
question abounds in social studies classrooms and how we respond
to it speaks volumes about our society, who we are, and what we
value (Elias, 2005). The way in which social studies classes are
organized and taught is integral to the discussion of what kind of
society we are and will become (Evans, 2004). Are we truly
interested in having students become active participants of learning
and citizenship? Does the larger society really desire that? If so,
the reverse approach responds to these charges by coinciding with
a constructivist orientation and disrupting the well-documented use
of textbooks through a dramatic, fun, and energizing restructuring
of a course curriculum. The content of textbooks is not necessarily
inimical to deep understandings of historical epochs and perennial
issues. But because textbooks are so often treated as the
fountainhead of curriculum and content knowledge is treated as an
end, not as a means, they contribute significantly to isolated and
meaningless learning experiences.
The Reverse Chronology Approach
The reverse chronology approach can involve what
Simpson (1983) called a “chaining” of past, present, and future,
whereby the perceived barriers between these three inseparable
temporal constructs are lifted. One concern with this approach
might be the development of “hindsight thinking,” but this is
where social studies education differs from history education. If we
choose to use history as material for making reasoned judgments,

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
77
expanding our view of humanity, and developing visions of the
common good (Barton & Levstik, 2004), then the benefit of
hindsight seems more palatable, given our primary aim of
developing citizens who can make informed and reasoned
decisions today. Typically, this approach unfolds with a prominent,
engaging, and relevant contemporary point from which inquiry is
based (Pfannkuche, 1971). From there, it is not a strict progression
into the past by year or era. Rather, teachers and students select a
period that provides explanatory powers for the contemporary
issue or idea. Once the first of multiple epochs is selected--which
can, in varying forms, be in reverse--each topic within an epoch
could progress in chronological order (Davis & Laushey, 1972).
For example, a class might decide that it is interested in
understanding the role of religion in public institutions, including
government and schools. This contemporary and often
controversial issue might lead to the identification and analysis of
turning points and events antecedent to the issue. If a secondary
school teacher had five classes and each class decided to focus on a
different topic, there could potentially be five routes into the past.
Although this might bring pause to some, if we think of the teacher
as a fellow inquirer and not the source of knowledge, then having
multiple points of departure throughout the day could actually
work to engage and stimulate teachers who might otherwise have
found monotony from repetition.
One point of departure might include the nuanced
regulations concerning prayer in school with the eventual backdrop
of religious influences in early American education. The pivotal
court cases of the 1960’s might then suggest a close investigation
of the First Amendment and the tricky balance attempted between
the establishment and the free exercise clauses. This line of inquiry
might then call for an investigation into the influences of deism
and Christianity on the formation of American government, which
might in turn lead to an exploration of tensions between state and

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
78
church in terms of sovereignty issues. From that point, there are
innumerable epochs and turning points to which one might attend.
In a recent study we witnessed several other examples of
reverse chronology experiences. In this comparative case study,
two teachers experimented with teaching a Cold War unit in
reverse. The overarching idea and starting point for one of the two
teachers was the nature and scale of current local, national, and
global conflict, with successive jumps back in time. They
progressed backward to U.S. involvement in Iraq in 1991, seeking
to understand conditions of the present in Iraq. This teacher then
asked students to predict what happened to get us to this point. He
moved back in time to the next topic: “In context: Afghanistan and
the birth of the Taliban.” This lesson included a map study of
ethnic, linguistic, and cultural regions of Afghanistan followed by
two days comparing modern politics with those of the past, helping
students make connections between the 1964 and 2004 elections as
they related to Middle Eastern foreign policy. In short, the teacher
used the past to help students understand “why these things were
happening in the world.” This approach provided the teacher and
students with choices about the terrain they would cover and, by
his observation, provided students with new critical thinking
challenges.
To be sure, the reverse chronology approach is potentially a
natural and fruitful path by which students may become interested
in their society and the history that undergirds it, but it also
requires skilled and competent teachers with strong content
knowledge (Frymier, 1955). It has the potential for greater
integration and interdisciplinary than a classic chronological
curricular model (Khazzaka, 1997), primarily because the route,
end points, and culminations of inquiry are not fixed. Instead, they
emerge through the process of investigation using the tools of
history and social studies. Through this method, history is used, in
a pragmatic fashion, to shed light on present concerns and connect
the disparate interests of students with the society writ large.

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
79
Although it is extremely important for students to understand past
issues, events, and conditions from the perspectives of people
living in past times, it is even more important for students to
understand the past from the perspective of today’s contemporary
issues and problems.
If we agree with the assumption that historical knowledge
is a means to citizenship and not an end, then teachers are in a
natural position to free themselves from linear chronological
progression (Davis & Laushey, 1972) and explore the possibility
that past-to-present ordering of historical content may dampen the
innate intellectual curiosity of students. Linear narratives can lack
criticality, multiple perspectives, and alternative explanations.
They can simplify and insulate us from the past (Barton & Levstik,
2004). Once we move beyond chronological linearity and
problematize multiple and varied antecedents, causes, and
implications, the ontological unity of past, present, and future can
become more effectively intermingled.
Toward Issues-Centered Learning
We suggest that the reverse chronology approach could
become a new iteration of issues-centered learning, as they have
much in common. Done well, both are grounded in a constructivist
framework that promotes deliberation and individual meaning-
making while entertaining problematic questions that contain
disagreement, controversy, and grey areas (Evans, Newmann, &
Saxe, 1996). Both draw eclectically from any and all social studies
disciplines in order to resolve the problem under study.
The emphasis Engle and Ochoa (1988), Rugg (1932),
Dewey (1933), and the Problems of Democracy course (Evans
2004) placed on issues-centered teaching certainly resonates with
reverse chronology, but there is one important distinction: reverse
chronology retains a deliberate historical structure in the sense that
history still resides at the center of the social studies curriculum—
it is simply leveraged in such a way as to respond to contemporary

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
80
concerns. We contend that in the current educational climate, that
brings so many demands to bear on teachers (test results, coverage
of standards, curriculum mapping, and curricular calibration), the
use of reverse chronology might present an attainable approach to
issues-centered teaching. We view issues-centered education as an
ideal format for social studies classes, but the current reliance and
interest on content acquisition calls for an intermediate or bridging
approach, one that marks a transition from traditional
chronological approaches toward often illusive issues-centered
ones.
Both issues-centered and reverse chronology approaches
are difficult, time consuming, and demanding. Although the former
represents an ideal aim, the latter offers a less controversial route
that brings about rigorous interdisciplinary inquiry. Therefore, we
situate the reverse chronology approach as a gateway for returning
to more progressively-oriented social studies. Although it is
possible to teach chronological history in issue-oriented ways that
invite analysis of the present and the past, we assert that a reverse
chronology method ensures a relationship between past and
present and offers teachers as curricularists an additional
possibility for the ways in which they structure their courses.
Benefits of Reverse Chronology
Although no rigorous and comprehensive study of the
reverse chronology approach exists, there is a clear need for
experimental studies in this area and for such studies to clearly
explicate their particular version of reverse chronology. The
literature does abound with a number of benefits inferred from
pilot and tangential studies, including alignment with established
learning theory (Pfannkuche, 1971), promise of increased levels of
student engagement, interest, and achievement (Davis & Laushey,
1972; Khazzaka, 1997), opportunities to address goals of
citizenship education (Simpson, 1983), and discussions about the
worth of knowledge (Frymier, 1955). In addition, this approach has

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
81
the potential to create natural points of departure for reflective
inquiry, builds relevance, engages students, fosters meaning,
professionalizes teachers as curricularists, and develops the
knowledge, skills and dispositions needed for democratic
citizenship.
For example, reverse chronology begins with the familiar
and reaches outward (Pfannkuche, 1971). Drawing on the
educational psychology theories of associationism and
connectionism, we can reasonably posit that students learn more
when the topic of study is related to their life experiences, where
lessons draw from the known and reach out to the unknown. As a
result, the reverse chronology approach is natural in a logical sense
for students (Simpson, 1983) and it can lead to cognitive gains in
the content area (Khazzaka, 1997).
By beginning with a springboard in familiar territory,
teachers can harness the present life interests, experiences, and
imaginations of the students and build upon them through an active
inquiry into the antecedents, causes, and explanations of the
present. Because some students’ life experiences and interests may
be narrow, it is important for the teacher to help students make
connections to the larger and broader society and how students are
connected to other individuals, groups, and institutions. This kind
of curricular organization can help to improve student attitudes
toward historical content (Khazzaka, 1997) and it offers benefits
for students with learning disabilities (Sebba & Clarke, 1993).
Unlike declarative approaches and curricula that lack depth and
nuance, grounding content in student interest has rich potential for
low-achieving classrooms (Good & Brophy, 2003).
Ideas that do not connect to other ideas, interests, or
experiences not only lack utility, they undermine meaningful
learning. Dewey’s (1933) articulation of the role of meaning in the
thinking process further underscores the promise of reverse
chronology, not only as a way to organize learning experiences,
but also to help teachers and students decide what content is most

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
82
worthy of inclusion. For something to have meaning, it needs to
have a relationship to other things. Dewey (1916) argued that there
is no real thinking when topics and ideas are isolated from
experience. Although both content knowledge and meaning are
critical features of powerful social studies teaching, when we
honor content above meaning, it becomes more difficult for
students to make connections and contextualize content
knowledge. This is how many social studies students view
historical content, and student disenfranchisement from the study
of historical content should come as no surprise if historical
content is not grounded in lived experience. This is precisely the
way in which reverse chronology helps create meaning--it will not
permit the study of content that does not have a relationship to
present experiences of society, of which the student is a part. By
starting today--in terms of current and perennial issues affecting
students and their communities--and working back, more meaning
is built and the chasm between the past and the present is
ultimately narrowed (Polos, 1980). All curricula require criteria by
which we select content (Thornton, 2005) and the reverse
chronology approach is no different. With the reverse chronology
approach, students know where they are going (Simpson, 1983)
and there is a great deal of utility for content relevant to their
reverse historical inquiry. Numerous and shifting perspectives,
including those of the students, is part and parcel of reverse
chronology and ultimately leads to deeper learning (Doppen,
2000).
The reverse chronology approach is also closely aligned
with the citizenship-oriented aims of social studies education.
Social studies education should ultimately create an expanded view
of humanity and an individual’s experience as it relates to
humanity while grappling with issues of the common good (Barton
& Levstik, 2004). Reverse chronology positions students to
persistently engage in such issues and questions (Simpson, 1983).
As students reconstruct and reorganize experiences within society

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
83
by engaging in interdisciplinary reverse chronology inquiry, they
can add meaning to experiences, which in turn aids in directing
subsequent experiences (Dewey, 1938). This generative approach
also develops a sense of judgment and choice, as both students and
teachers engage in the selection of content as active consumers of
history and making choices as democratic citizens (Frymier, 1955).
The reverse chronology approach is also a natural fit for
addressing controversial issues, which helps students develop civic
competence. In a traditional chronological organization, too often
controversies and closed areas (Hunt & Metcalf, 1968) are glossed
over or avoided within a linear progression. Live, public, and
contested issues where significant disagreement exists (Hess,
2002) constitute a normative anchor within citizenship education
and the degree to which controversy and closed areas are exposed
to rational consideration has profound implications for the
vibrancy of a democracy. Engaging students in controversies pays
numerous democratic dividends, including increased civic
participation, critical thinking skills, and political activity. These
judgments also elevate interest in current events, social studies
content, social issues, and increase the development of tolerance
(Harwood & Hahn, 1990; Goldensen, 1978; Curtis & Shaver,
1980; Remy, 1972).
Topics closed to reflective thought can certainly result in
sustained unexamined beliefs and the formation of decisions that
are based on blind impulse, emotion, or prejudice. If subject matter
is to be correlated to the social life of the child (Dewey, 1897),
then students should study persistent social problems, connect the
past with the present, and consider choices. Broaching
controversial issues is predicated on curriculum gatekeepers
deciding to position students to engage in these kinds of
discussions, yet they often remain a rarity. Perhaps students have
difficulty participating in controversial discussions, teachers lack
the confidence to broach them, or teachers fear community or
administrative reprisal (Hess, 2002; Misco & Patterson, 2007).

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
84
Ultimately teachers might feel that controversies are at odds with
the prescribed content, a spurious schism that the reverse approach
can help disrupt by beginning historical inquiry with contemporary
and contested controversial issues. This way, teachers might view
controversies as necessary components of their curriculum, as well
as citizenship education, and as natural points of departure into the
past.
The reverse chronology approach also helps answer the
question of what knowledge is of most worth. Many teachers often
assert that they are unable to get through the required content and,
as a result, their students do not learn about the Cold War,
Vietnam, and other topics more closely related to present
conditions than that of antiquity. The reverse approach repositions
these often marginalized contemporary topics by placing them in a
position of privilege, given their relevance to the present. By
employing the reverse chronology approach, teachers exercise
more discretion to modify, discard, and include content as more
empowered curriculum gatekeepers. This approach complicates
preformed curricula and encourages teacher-created lessons and
units, which often sparks some of the best teaching (Thornton,
2005). Reverse chronology removes the perceived burdens of
irrelevant lessons by subjecting all content to the test of present-
day applicability. By focusing on content that has meaning--having
connections to present issues and student interests--understandings
of content gain a great deal of resilience and durability
(Pfannkuche, 1971).
In short, the potential benefits of using reverse chronology
are tangible and they address a number of the persistent challenges
teachers face. As a result of reverse chronology, social studies can
become interesting and relevant as there is no longer a need to
“sell” unrelated trivial historical content that does not relate to
student experiences (Davis & Laushey, 1972). If, as Pfannkuche
(1971) suggested, “the subject under consideration was not in any
way amenable to the addition of current event material, there

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
85
would be little need for it to be taught, thus paring down on the
volume of historical information deemed necessary to good
learning and at the same time building added interest in the
material remaining” (p. 246). This paring down removes the
onerous task of coverage, reduces overcoverage of topics, and
allows the social studies to gain prominence as an indispensable
subject that, given the numerous social problems we face, any
marginalization of which would be unethical and unconscionable.
Instead of reinforcing passive reception of knowledge, reverse
chronology involves natural interplay of inductive and deductive
thinking (Simpson, 1983) and it develops students as active and
empowered consumers and producers of historical meaning and
knowledge.
Reverse Chronology Unit Design
Given the apotheosis of content knowledge, unit design is
very much a critical fulcrum in an era of standards and high stakes
tests. Standards and high-stakes testing tend to affirm chronology
and emphasize coverage as an approach to curricular decision
making, thereby ensuring that nothing is left out, which often
results in superficial treatment of topics (Caron, 2005). As
indicated in the aforementioned example, the reverse approach
departs from a lockstep progression through historical content and
invites teachers to reject organizational dictates and edicts
(Frymier, 1955). This approach can also create more interaction
among teachers, students, and the subject matter, as unit design
becomes somewhat emergent and participatory. In reverse
chronology, students and teachers make conscious decisions about
what will be studied and why it will be studied, which counters
passivity and responds to the question “why do we need to learn
this?” It becomes readily apparent why the class decided to learn
about a topic--in order to understand a contemporary issue, idea, or
event. If the state or district prescribed bit of content that is not
connected, students and teachers alike can find the logic in not

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
86
investing significant instructional time in covering that which has
no relation to the present. This way, teachers can dedicate enough
time for mastery of content that is both tested and disconnected
from present concerns and devote the majority of class time to
content that informs the present.
Thornton (2005) suggests that curriculum is an instrument,
one that educators need to modify and manipulate. As they do,
they engage in an active relationship between subject matter,
students, society, and the teacher. In the reverse chronology
approach, teachers work as curriculum writers in creative and
generative ways and are endowed with a sense of professionalism
and choice (Hlebowitsh, 2005). They become full and honored
partners in the design and implementation of learning experiences
(Ross, 1997) thereby reclaiming autonomy and stimulating an
infectious interest in content decision-making. Standards and
testing potentially minimize alternative approaches to social
studies education and lead to narrow curriculum neglecting the
aims of citizenship (Evans, 2004), but they do not have to. We can
still meet most of the standards and ensure coverage without
devolving to a lockstep progression, while satisfying the larger
citizenship purposes of history within social studies education.
Similar to issues-centered approaches, reverse chronology
positions teachers to decide which topics are worthy of
understanding, at what time, and in what order (Evans, Newmann,
& Saxe, 1996). A curriculum needs to be responsive to students,
communities, and the state, all of which will help bound the
possibilities for reverse chronology, yet ensure enough freedom for
the teacher’s professional judgment in curriculum design.
Conclusion
The problem of disconnected, meaningless, and boring
learning experiences is all too real. Teaching historical content in
the social studies from arbitrary beginning and end points may
exacerbate student disinterest and disengagement in historical

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
87
content, as well as frustrate the socio-civic aims and goals that
historical content is supposed to help achieve. Given this problem
and the current challenges of high-stakes testing, marginalization
of social studies, and an increased value of knowledge acquisition,
we feel that the reverse chronology approach can help teachers
respond to these onerous demands and reposition historical content
as a tool for engaging in contemporary issues, questions, and
problems. The reverse chronology method retains historical inquiry
as the disciplinary focus of social studies classes, but it seeks to
build connections with the meaningful, engaging, and provocative
orientation of issues-centered instruction. As a result of employing
this method, we hope that classrooms will benefit from a
harmonious relationship of required content and meaningful
learning, while thoughtfully achieving the aims of democratic
citizenship education.
References
Barton, K. C. (2005). Primary sources in history: Breaking through
the myths. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10).
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the
common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Caron, E. J. (2005). What leads to the fall of a great empire? Using
central questions to design issues-based history units. The
Social Studies, 96(2).
Center for Civic Education (2003). We the people. Calabasas, CA:
Center for Civic Education.
Chiodo, J. J., & Byford, J. (2004). Do they really dislike social
studies? A study of middle school and high school students.
Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(1).
Curtis, C. K., & Shaver, J.P. (1980). Slow learners as the study of
contemporary problems. Social Education, 44.
Davis, G. H., & Laushey, D. M. (1972). Tampering with the
temporal order. History Teacher, 5(3).
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3).

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
88
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and
Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York:
Touchstone.
Doppen, F., Misco, T., & Patterson, N. (2008). The state of K-12
social studies instruction in Ohio. Journal of Social Studies
Research and
Practice, 3(3).
Doppen, F. (2000). Teaching and learning multiple perspectives:
The atomic bomb. The Social Studies, 91(4).
Doyle, D. P. (2004). Backwards reels the mind. Educational
Leadership, 61(6).
Elias, A. J. (2005). Metahistorical romance, the historical sublime,
and dialogic history. Rethinking History, 9(2/3).
Engle, S. H. & Ochoa, A. S. (1988). Education for democratic
citizenship: Decision making in the social studies. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Evans, R. W., Newmann, F. M., & Saxe, D. W. (1996). Defining
issues-centered education. In R. W. Evans and D. W. Saxe
(Eds.) Handbook on Teaching Social Issues. Washington, D.C.:
NCSS.
Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Frymier, J. R. (1955). A new approach to teaching history? The
Social Studies, 46.
Goldenson, D. R. (1978). An alternative view about the role of the
secondary school in political socialization: A field
experimental study of the development of civil liberties
attitudes. Theory and Research in Social Education, 6.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Harwood, A. M., & Hahn, C. L. (1990). Controversial Issues in the
Classroom. (Report No. ED 327 453). Washington, D.C.:
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
89
Hess, D. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in
secondary social studies classrooms. Theory and Research in
Social Education, 20(1).
Hlebowitsh, P. S. (2005). Generational ideas in curriculum: A
historical triangulation. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1).
Hunt, M. P., & Metcalf, L. E. (1968). Teaching High School Social
Studies. New York: Harper and Row.
Horowitz, M. M. (n.d.) History: Backwards and forwards.
Improving College University Teaching, 17(1).
Kahne, J., Rodriquez, M. Smith, B., & Thiede, K. (2000).
Developing citizens for democracy? Assessing opportunities to
learn in Chicago’s social studies classrooms. Theory and
Research in Social Education, 28(3).
Khazzaka, J. (1997). Flashback: Comparing two approaches to
teaching world history. Social Education, 61(4).
Leming, J. (1989). The two cultures of social studies education.
Social Education, 53.
Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Misco, T., & Patterson, N. (2007). A study of pre-service teachers’
conceptualizations of academic freedom and controversial
issues. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(4).
Misco, T. (2005). In response to NCLB: A case for retaining the
social studies. Essays in Education, 15.
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations for
Excellence: Curriculum Standards for the Social Studies.
Washington, D.C.: NCSS.
Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and
the students who read them. Review of Educational Research,
69(3).
Pfannkuche, C. L. (1971). A modest proposal for history teachers.
Social Studies, 62(6).
Polos, N. C. (1980). A hero is not a sandwich. Community College
Social Science Journal, 3(2).

T
Volume 33, Issue 1
90
Ravitch, D. (2003). The language police: How pressure groups
restrict what students learn. New York: Knopf.
Remy, R. C. (1972). High school seniors’ attitudes toward their
civics and government instruction. Social Education, 36.
Rock, T. C., Heafner, T., O’Connor, K., Passe, J., Oldendorf, S.,
Good, A. & Byrd, S. (2006). One state closer to a national
crisis: A report on elementary social studies education in North
Carolina schools. Theory and Research in Social Education,
4(34), p. 455-483.
Ross, E. W. (1997). The struggle for the social studies curriculum.
In E.
W. Ross (Ed.), The Social Studies Curriculum. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Rugg, H. (1932). Changing governments and changing cultures.
New York: Ginn and Company.
Sebba, J., & Clarke, J. (1993). A response to “We’re Doing
History”. British Journal of Special Education, 20(4).
Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions.
Daedalus, 134, p. 52-59.
Simpson, M. (1983). Why the past comes last. Indiana Social
Studies Quarterly, 36(2).
Sternberg, M. (1990). Narratology revisited II. Poetics Today,
11(4).
Thornton, S. J. (2005). Teaching social studies that matters. New
York: Teachers College Press.
About the Author
Thomas Misco is Assistant Professor in the School of Education,
Health, and Society, Department of Teacher Education at Miami
University, Oxford, OH 45056.
Nancy C. Patterson is Associate Professor in the College of
Education, School of Teaching and Learning at Bowling Green
State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: An Old Fad of Great Promise: Reverse Chronology
History Teaching in Soc
SOURCE: Journal of Social Studies Research 33 no1 Spr 2009
PAGE(S): 71-90
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.uni.edu/

An Old Fad Of Great Promise Reverse Chronology History Teaching In Social Studies Classes

More Related Content

Similar to An Old Fad Of Great Promise Reverse Chronology History Teaching In Social Studies Classes

More from Sabrina Baloi

Recently uploaded

An Old Fad Of Great Promise Reverse Chronology History Teaching In Social Studies Classes