The C3 Framework for Social Studies: Minimally Guided Instruction or Disciplined Inquiry?
Image from the cover of the C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards: https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/c3
Preface
This past week, I briefly engaged with post on LinkedIn from Drew Perkins, the president and director of Thought Stretchers Education, which offers professional development around project-based and inquiry learning. Perkins also hosts a podcast, which I listen to periodically. On the podcast, Perkins has often engaged the debate between advocates of inquiry-based learning and proponents of direct instruction. Perkins’ professional work has focused on inquiry-based learning, but I have appreciated his willingness to engage the other side, and take their points to heart. He has often pointed out that both sides have a tendency to create a straw man argument by painting their opponent in broad strokes. One side paints a picture where all forms of direct or explicit instruction are dry, teacher-monologue lectures with no student interaction; similarly, the other side portrays all forms of project-based, problem-based, or inquiry learning as unguided discovery learning. I have appreciated that Perkins has continually pointed out that there is a lot of daylight in the middle where great teaching and learning takes place. In his LinkedIn post this week, he was again pushing back on the straw man approach from one side, and advocating for more nuance.
Upon thinking about this debate, I decided to go back and re-read a paper that I wrote a couple of years ago for a class in my Ed.D. program. The paper was meant to be a Literature Review, not a position paper with a particular argument. As a result, I think writing it was a helpful exercise in exploring and reviewing the nuances of the research. For this paper, I specifically focused on the C3 Framework for Social Studies, published by the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS), a framework that has promoted an inquiry-based approach to social studies education. I wanted to understand the literature on the impact of the C3 Framework in terms of inquiry-based learning in social studies. This one is a little long and academic.
Introduction
Shortly after the release of the C3 Framework, Herczog (2014), then president of the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), outlined the four instructional shifts that would be required of teachers in order to implement the C3 Framework in social studies classrooms. According to Herczog (2014), the first of those four instructional shifts would require that teachers put inquiry at the center of learning. The third would require teachers to facilitate students applying their knowledge via authentic disciplinary mediums to real-world problems. With the fourth instructional shift, Herczog (2014) pointed out that the inquiry arc of the C3 Framework also represents a framework for instruction. These shifts imply that the developers of the C3 Framework intend to push social studies teachers towards inquiry-based and problem-based approaches to instruction.
The C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards (hereafter called the C3 Framework) was published by NCSS in 2013. According to the C3 Framework, the goal of K-12 social studies education is to ensure that students are ready for college, career and civic life (NCSS, 2013). The C3 Framework is arranged in an inquiry arc of four dimensions. The four dimensions are: Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries; Applying Disciplinary Tools and Concepts; Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence; Communication Conclusions and Taking Informed Action (NCSS, 2013).
Since its release in 2013, the C3 Framework has had significant influence on state social studies curricular standards. Between 2013 and 2021, sixteen US states reviewed their social studies state standards and revised them based on the C3 Framework (New et al., 2021). A further sixteen states used portions of the C3 Framework or cited its influence during their revisions of social studies standards (New et al., 2021). Together that makes up more than three-fifths of the social studies state standards in the US that have been significantly influenced by the C3 Framework. Following the release of the C3 Framework, Swan et al. (2015) developed the Inquiry Design Model (Cuenca, 2021; Long, 2020; Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Pugh, 2018; Thacker et al., 2018a; Thacker et al., 2018b). The Inquiry Design Model (IDM), together with a subsequent resource website (C3 Teachers, n.d.), was developed by the three lead writers of the C3 Framework itself for the purpose of supporting the instructional shifts required of the C3 Framework (Cuenca, 2021; Long, 2020; Pugh, 2018).
When released, its authors presented the C3 Framework as an effort to reinvigorate social studies education, pushing it away from common content-coverage approaches, towards inquiry-based and problem-based learning (Long, 2020; Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Pugh, 2018; Saye, 2017). These inquiry and problem-based approaches, however, have not been without controversy (Kirschner et al. 2006; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Schmidt et al., 2007). Kirschner et al. (2006), for example, classified both as forms of minimally guided instruction, which, they argued, fail to consider evidence from cognitive science. Because of this, according to Kirschner et al. (2006), minimally guided instructional approaches are ineffective for student learning.
At the outset of this literature review, I am asking the question: What has been the impact on social studies instruction of the C3 Framework and its emphasis on inquiry and problem-based learning? In seeking to answer this question, I review the literature on inquiry and problem-based learning. I also review the literature on how the C3 Framework has been interpreted and implemented by teachers and curriculum and instruction leaders in social studies.
The Cognitive Science-based Critique
Kirschner et al. (2006) classified inquiry and problem-based learning as two of several models of minimally guided instruction. Minimally guided instruction, according to the authors, involves a learning environment in which students control their learning with limited guidance from the teacher. Kirschner et al. (2006) took issue with models of minimally guided instruction because they don’t consider human cognitive architecture, specifically the human cognitive functions of memory. They stated that “the aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory” (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 77). If learning is defined as changes to long-term memory, then the ultimate goal of instruction is to promote those memory changes. Kirschner et al. (2006) pointed to the research around Cognitive Load Theory as one example of how minimally guided instruction models fail to consider what is known about human memory from cognitive science.
Sweller’s (1988) work was influential in the development of Cognitive Load Theory. He demonstrated that working memory, which has limited capacity, can experience such a heavy cognitive load in certain situations, that working memory fails to encode new information to long-term memory. Sweller (1988) found that an example of such a situation is when novices attempt unguided problem-solving tasks on a topic for which they have limited background knowledge. Lacking background knowledge, the novice must pursue a means-end problem-solving strategy, working from the end-goal backwards, figuring out a pathway for the solution to the problem. This requires such a heavy load on working memory, that, even if they solve the problem, the novice students retain very little new information about the topic in long-term memory. Kirschner et al. (2006) argued that this is a problem with minimally guided models of instruction; teachers following such a version of inquiry or problem-based learning throw novices into a complex question or problem situation in which they have limited background knowledge. Teachers then expect the students to construct their own learning as they investigate the question or attempt to solve the problem. Sweller’s (1988) Cognitive Load Theory provided evidence that this is an ineffective way of promoting changes to long-term memory, and thus an inefficient and unproductive instructional approach.
An element of Cognitive Load Theory is what Kalyuga et al. (2003) called, the expertise reversal effect. Kalyuga et al. (2003) argued that for a novice student, with little or no prior knowledge on a particular topic, a problem-solving approach to learning is ineffective. More effective is a model of direct instruction that involves the teacher introducing new information on the topic, and modeling the application of that new information through worked examples. Conversely, as Kalyuga et al. (2003) pointed out, as a student gains greater expertise and more domain-specific knowledge, there will come a point where the reverse becomes true. This is the reversal effect that comes with greater expertise. Possession of domain-specific knowledge means that the student is able to automate part of the cognitive process, and is thus able to approach a problem and work forward towards the solution (Sweller, 1988). As Kirschner et al. (2006) put it, the expertise reversal effect demonstrates “the importance of providing novices in an area with extensive guidance because they do not have sufficient knowledge in long-term memory to prevent unproductive problem-solving search” (p. 80). Cognitive Load Theory and the expertise reversal effect present a significant challenge to minimally guided forms of instruction.
Support for Inquiry and Problem-Based Learning
Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) believed that Kirschner et al. (2006) were wrong to categorize inquiry and problem-based learning as forms of minimally guided instruction. Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) described inquiry and problem-based models of learning as those in which learning is organized around real-world questions and problems. Students investigate relevant information, organize ideas from sources, and develop evidence-based arguments, explanations and solutions for those real-world questions and problems. However, according to Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), there is nothing in the inquiry or problem-based learning approaches that require that students navigate this process on their own. Schmidt et al. (2007) echoed the argument that Kirschner et al. (2006) mischaracterized problem-based learning. They pointed out that problem-based learning intentionally considers human cognitive architecture by providing scaffolded support, including guidance on activating prior knowledge relevant to the problem, and even direct instruction of key facts and concepts when needed to support the learner in the problem-solving process.
Though not extensive, there has been some research on inquiry and problem based learning in social studies instruction. Maxwell et al. (2005) conducted a quasi-experimental study of economics classes in 11 different high schools and found that the students in the problem-based learning version of a macroeconomic class demonstrated greater learning growth than the traditional lecture-discussion comparison classes. In another study related to high school economics, Finkelstein et al. (2010) were commissioned by the Institute of Educational Sciences of the US Department of Education to evaluate a problem-based learning initiative for high school economics. The evaluation involved over 4,000 high school economics students in 106 schools across Arizona and California. Finkelstein et al.’s (2010) data revealed significantly greater gains in economic content knowledge and problem-solving skills among the students in the problem-based learning groups as compared to those in the traditional lecture-discussion control groups. In a study of another social studies discipline, Parker et al. (2013) implemented and evaluated a form of problem-based learning curriculum for AP Government across four different high schools. They found that the students enrolled in the problem-based learning versions of the class performed as well or better than the control groups on the College Board administered AP exam. They also performed better on the researchers’ developed measurement of a complex real-world government problem.
Though not a large quantity of research, these three are all examples of rigorous, quantitative, and relatively large sample-size quasi-experimental studies. These results generally align with the trends from studies related to instruction in other school subjects, such as in the natural sciences (Areepattamannil et al., 2020; Cobern et al., 2010; De Witte & Rogge, 2016; Sungar et al., 2006; Ward & Lee, 2004; ). Overall, while there have been mixed results in different studies, there is a growing collection of research suggesting that, when implemented well, students in inquiry and problem-based learning classrooms perform just as well, and sometimes a little better, than their peers in traditional lecture-discussion based classrooms.
Interpretation and Implementation of C3 Framework
It’s been nearly ten years since the release of the C3 Framework in 2013. While the framework has clearly had an influence on revisions to state social studies standards, this paper is primarily concerned with its impact on instructional practices. This comes down to the way the C3 Framework has been interpreted and implemented by instructional leaders and teachers. Have social studies teachers shifted towards minimally guided forms of instruction because of the C3 Framework? While not extensive, there has been some research on this.
Disciplined Inquiry
A number of the researchers involved with developing, implementing or studying the C3 Framework have interpreted it as a form of disciplined inquiry (Long, 2020; Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Saye, 2017; Thacker et al., 2018b). According to these researchers, the C3 Framework did not intend for a free exploration form of instruction. Rather, disciplined inquiry is a rigorous, structured process that follows the four dimensions of the inquiry arc. Disciplined inquiry begins with compelling and supporting questions, layers in relevant discipline-specific information, concepts and tools, and engages with sources of information, evaluating and organizing the information from these sources (NCSS, 2013; Minigan et al., 2017; Thacker et al., 2018b). At the end of the inquiry arc, students are asked to construct, present and act-upon evidence-based arguments and explanations (NCSS, 2013; Thacker et al., 2018b). Saye (2017) argued that this form of inquiry requires a level of expertise rarely possessed by primary or secondary students. This relates to Sweller’s (1988) Cognitive Load Theory. A number of researchers on the C3 Framework have concluded, as novices in this form of inquiry, students require significant scaffolding, modeling and guidance until they develop sufficient expertise (Long, 2020; Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Martell, 2020; Mueller, 2018). Saye (2017) went so far as to argue that explicit instruction is necessary to provide novice students with the necessary background knowledge and models of disciplined inquiry, implying that explicit instruction is not out of step with the intentions of the C3 Framework.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Disciplined inquiry derives its name also from its basis in disciplinary practices (Long, 2020; Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Saye, 2017; Thacker et al., 2018a). This means that it arises from questions that are compelling within a particular discipline and which require discipline-specific knowledge and understanding of discipline-specific tools (Minigan et al., 2017). It also means that students must engage in disciplinary literacy, meaning that they must read, interpret and evaluate the sources that are common in that discipline, and then construct and present their evidence-based arguments and explanations as one would from the perspective of that discipline (LaDuke et al, 2016; Pugh, 2018; Thacker et al., 2018a; Thacker et al., 2018b).
A number of qualitative studies of schools and teachers involved in implementing the C3 Framework pointed to the need for increased teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in order to successfully implement this kind of disciplined inquiry (Cuenca, 2021; Long, 2020; Martell, 2020; Thacker et al., 2018a; Thacker et al., 2018b). The concept of PCK comes from the work of Shullman (1986) who argued that teaching requires a unique form of knowledge that combines teachers’ knowledge of a subject’s content, their knowledge of pedagogy, and their knowledge of students. With the C3 Framework, not only do teachers require a good understanding of the facts and information of different social studies topics, they also require a deeper disciplinary knowledge of the questions, debates, concepts, tools, sources, methods and communication mediums of the discipline (Long, 2020; Martell, 2020; Thacker et al., 2018a; Thacker et al., 2018b). Furthermore, they must have the pedagogical knowledge, and the knowledge of their students, to structure a disciplined inquiry, scaffold it, model it, and guide their students through it (Martell, 2020; Saye, 2017; Thacker et al., 2018a; Thacker et al., 2018b). Many C3 Framework implementing teachers in the literature pointed to the need for additional professional development in order to build their PCK for disciplined inquiry-based learning (Long, 2020; Martell, 2020; Thacker et al., 2017; Thacker et al., 2018a).
Challenge of Student Background Knowledge
As mentioned already, a number of researchers argued that the disciplined inquiry required of the C3 Framework requires significant scaffolding, guidance and direct instruction from the teacher to support novice students who possess limited background knowledge. This issue of student background knowledge arose in a number of studies of teachers implementing the C3 Framework (Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Martell, 2020; Thacker et al., 2017). According to Martell (2020), despite teachers expressing inquiry-based learning as their pedagogical ideal, they often struggled to implement inquiry-based learning in the social studies classroom. All three teachers Martell (2020) studied felt that students struggled with inquiry-based learning due to a lack of background knowledge; this was a problem to the point that it was a major obstacle to the implementation of inquiry-based learning.
In a survey of social studies teachers by Thacker et al. (2017), 82% of respondents expressed that the lack of student background knowledge was a key constraint on the inquiry-based learning envisioned by the C3 Framework. This constraint also came up in Manfra & Greiner’s (2021) study of one middle school history teacher implementing the C3 Framework. The teacher found that students often lacked the necessary background knowledge to engage historical primary sources. Mueller (2018) found similar reactions from several of six teachers studied, who had mixed feelings about the C3 Framework inquiry process. At first they appreciated the enthusiasm of students for the compelling questions, but then found that the enthusiasm faded because the students, due to insufficient background knowledge, struggled with the inquiry.
At points, the researchers in each of these studies interpreted the teacher concerns about student background knowledge as an ingrained desire in teachers to focus on breadth of content over depth of inquiry, or as simply a lack of teacher experience with inquiry-based learning (Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Martell, 2020; Thacker et al., 2017). In fact, Manfra & Greiner (2021) concluded their study by stating: “the instructional shifts necessary to implement the C3 Framework in a manner intended by its developers did not occur” (p. 40). They surmised that this was partly because of the teacher’s “epistemological frame of reference… which relied on content coverage” (p. 40). None of these researchers seemed to take seriously the challenge of student background knowledge, despite the fact that the concern is supported by the research on Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988; Kalyuga et al, 2003). This indicates that some researchers and teachers have interpreted the ideal of inquiry in the C3 Framework as student-led with reduced teacher guidance.
Tension Between Direct Instruction and Inquiry-based Learning
The tension between teacher-led and student-led inquiry appeared repeatedly in the literature on the C3 Framework and its implementation. This was an area that lacked clarity among researchers, instructional leaders and teachers. On the one hand, the IDM, developed by the key developers of the C3 Framework, implies a teacher-led process (Swan et al., 2015). It requires that teachers develop the compelling questions, lay out the flow of the inquiry via supporting questions, gather the sources students will engage, determine the formative learning tasks, and decide on the summative assessment (Cuenca, 2021; Long, 2020; Swan et al., 2015). As pointed out by Cuenca (2021), the lesson and unit resources available on the C3 Teachers website, developed via the IDM framework, provide fully outlined inquiries already developed for teachers (C3 Teachers, n.d.). These are definitely not examples of minimally guided, student-led inquiries; rather, these are fully teacher-directed.
On the other hand, the C3 Framework itself employed student-centered language when articulating the inquiry standards of each dimension (NCSS, 2013). For example, in dimension one it stated: “Individually and with others, students construct compelling questions…” (NCSS, 2013, p. 24). Elsewhere in dimension three it stated: “Individually and with others, students gather relevant information from multiple sources…” (NCSS, 2013, p. 54). It seems that some teachers and researchers interpreted this to mean that students should be engaged in independent, minimally guided inquiry (Pugh, 2018). Thacker et al. (2018a), for example, in their qualitative study of one elementary school teacher, felt that the teacher-led approach to crafting the inquiry ran contrary to the ideals of inquiry-based learning. They wrote: “Ideally, inquiries are authentic in nature, meaning that students determine compelling and supporting questions based on their intrinsic interests in a given topic” (Thacker et al., 2018a, p. 96).
In another example, the middle school teacher studied by Manfra & Greiner (2021) reflected on the tension when trying to implement the C3 Framework. This teacher believed it was important to make learning student-led. At the same time, however, the teacher felt that the students lacked sufficient background knowledge to engage in student-led inquiry and thus they needed more direct instruction. Pugh (2018), in studying how curriculum and instruction leaders implemented the C3 Framework found that they were divided on this point. Those who saw the inquiry process as teacher-led had little issue with the C3 Framework, but those who saw it as student-led, resisted fully embracing the C3 Framework because it rendered impossible the planned sequencing of units to fulfill state standards.
Conclusion
This paper sought to answer the question: What has been the impact on social studies instruction of the C3 Framework and its emphasis on inquiry and problem-based learning? This question is important because it situates the C3 Framework within an important debate over instructional approaches. While there is some research evidence that suggests positive outcomes of inquiry and problem-based learning, there is also evidence from cognitive science that problematizes minimally guided versions of inquiry and problem-based learning. Based on a review of the literature, the answer to this question is far from clear-cut. The C3 Framework itself is somewhat ambiguous on the question of teacher-led versus student-led inquiry. Pugh (2018) noted that the C3 Framework “specifically states that beginning in elementary school that students, ‘individually and with others’ (NCSS, 2013, p. 24) construct compelling and supporting questions and select appropriate resources to support inquiries” (p. 187). However, as Grant (2013), one of the lead writers of the C3 Framework, clarified, this does not require student-led, minimally guided inquiry, but rather a gradual release of some aspects of the inquiry responsibility to students “over the course of their school lives” (p. 326).
The ambiguity of the C3 Framework’s intentions around the degree to which teachers should direct the inquiry learning seems to have contributed to different interpretations of C3 Framework-based instructional shifts. On the one hand, the primary writers of the C3 Framework developed the IDM and the C3 Teachers website to support teachers with tools that imply very teacher-directed inquiries (C3 Teachers, n.d.; Swan et al., 2015; ). On the other hand, a number of implementing teachers studied expressed tension with what they perceived as the ideal intentions for student-led inquiry, versus their practical experience with insufficient student background knowledge and expertise (Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Martell, 2020; Mueller, 2018; Thacker et al., 2018a). Some researchers concluded that teachers are not fulfilling the intentions of the C3 Framework when students are not developing their own inquiries and teachers are relying on direct instruction (Manfra & Greiner, 2021; Martell, 2020; Thacker et al., 2017).
Further research is needed on the implementation of the C3 Framework and its impact on social studies instruction and student learning. Most of the studies in the current literature focused on teacher experiences with implementation. These studies were largely qualitative and focused on very narrow samples, sometimes of just one teacher. While these provide thick descriptions of individual teacher experiences, their generalizability is limited. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently nothing in the literature that has attempted to measure student learning outcomes as a result of the C3 Framework. Of interest for further research could be comparisons with C3 Framework implementation between Saye’s (2017) version of disciplined inquiry and traditional non-inquiry-based direct instruction, or between disciplined inquiry and minimally-guided forms of inquiry. Given the significant impact of the C3 Framework on social studies standards and instructional approaches, this is a topic demanding additional attention.
References
Areepattamannil, S., Cairns, D. & Dickson, M. (2020). Teacher-directed versus inquiry-based science instruction: Investigating links to adolescent students’ science dispositions across 66 countries. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(6), 675-704. https://doi.org/jp6s
C3 Teachers (n.d.). https://c3teachers.org/
Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., Loving, C. C. & Gobert, J. D. (2010). Experimental comparisons of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 81-96. https://doi.org/djtz8d
Cuenca, A. (2021). Proposing core practices practices for social studies teacher education: A qualitative content analysis of inquiry-based lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 298-313. https://doi.org/jp6t
De Witte, K. & Rogge, N. (2016). Problem-based learning in secondary education: Evaluation by an experiment. Education Economics, 24(1), 58-82. https://doi.org/ghzhch
Finkelstein, N., Hanson, T., Huang, C., Hirschman, B. & Huang, M. (2010). Effects of problem based economics on high school economics instruction. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Institute of Education Science. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.wested.org/resources/effects-of-problem-based-economics-on-high-school-economics-instruction-final-report/
Grant, S. G. (2013). From inquiry arc to instructional practice: The potential of the C3 Framework. Social Education, 77(6), 322-326.
Herczog, M. M. (2014). Implementing the C3 framework: Monitoring the instructional shifts. Social Education, 78(4), 165-169.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychology, 42(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/bnx42f
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/d7rktj
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/bsm5cs
LaDuke, A., Lindner, M. & Yanoff, E. (2016). Content, Disciplinary, and Critical Literacies in the C3 and Common Core. Social Studies Research and Practice, 11(3), 96-111. https://doi.org/jp6v
Long, E. (2020). “What we do in school could actually matter”: A novice teacher and the inquiry design model. Ohio Social Studies Review, 56(2), 1-15.
Manfra, M. M. & Greiner, J. A. (2021). Integrating the C3 framework in the social studies: An action research study. Social Studies Research and Practice, 16(1), 28-42. DOI 10.1108/SSRP-06-2020-0022
Martell, C. C. (2020). Barriers to inquiry-based instruction: A longitudinal study of history teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 7(3), 279-291. https://doi.org/jp6w
Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R. & Bellisimo, Y. (2005). Problem-based learning and high school macroeconomics: A comparative study of instructional methods. Journal of Economic Education, 36(4), 315-331. https://doi.org/cz8vj4
Minigan, A. P., Westbrook, S., Rothstein, D. & Santana, L. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining inquiry with students’ questions. Social Education, 81(5), 268-272.
Mueller, R. G. W. (2018). Examining teachers’ development and implementation of compelling questions. Social Studies Research and Practice, 13(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/jp6z
National Council for the Social Studies (2013). C3 framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history.
New, R, Swan, K, Lee, J & Grant, S. G. (2021). The state of social studies standards: What is the impact of the C3 Framework? Social Education, 85(4), 239-246.
Parker, W. C., Lo, J., Yeo, A. J., Valencia, S. W., Nguyen, D., Abbott, R. D., Nolen, S. B., Bransford, J. D. & Vye, N. J. (2013). Beyond breath-speed-test: Towards deeper knowing and engagement in an Advanced Placement course. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1424-1459. https://doi.org/gjkx7w
Pugh, S. M. (2018). The initial implementation patterns of the C3 framework in Maryland school districts. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park]. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland. https://doi.org/jp62
Saye, J. W. (2017). Disciplined inquiry in social studies classrooms. In C. M. Bolick & M. M. Manfra (Eds.). The wiley handbook of social studies research. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., van Gog, T. and Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91-97. https://doi.org/bnx42f
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/bg52xz
Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C. & Geban, O. (2006). Improving achievement through problem-based learning. Journal of Biological Education, 40(4), 155-160. https://doi.org/bz65dm
Swan, K, Lee, J. & Grant, S. G. (2015). The New York State toolkit and the inquiry design model: Anatomy of an inquiry. Social Education, 79(5), 316-322.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. https://doi.org/c47v64
Thacker, E. S., Friedman, A. M., Fitchett, P. G., Journell, W. & Lee, J. K. (2018a). Exploring how an elementary teacher plans and implements social studies inquiry. The Social Studies, 109(2), 85-100. https://doi.org/gqtnww
Thacker, E. S., Lee, J. K., Fitchett, P. G. & Journell, W. (2018b). Secondary social studies teachers’ experiences planning and implementing inquiry using the inquiry design model. The Clearing House, 91(4/5), 193-200. https://doi.org/jp63
Thacker, E. S., Lee, J. K. & Friedman, A. M. (2017). Teaching with the C3 framework: Surveying teacher’s beliefs and practices. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 41, 89-100. https://doi.org/jp64
Ward, J. & Lee, C. L. (2004). Teaching strategies for FCS: Student achievement in problem-based learning versus lecture-based instruction. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 96(1), 73-76.
Wilder, S. (2015). Impact of problem-based learning on academic achievement in high school: a systematic review. Educational Review, 67(4), 414-435. https://doi.org/gd526h
