Core characteristics of the social studies teacher from stakeholder perspectives: A comparative analysis

Abstract

The primary aim of this study is to identify the core qualities that social studies teachers in Türkiye are expected to possess, based on stakeholder perspectives. Designed as a qualitative case study, the research sought to address the question: “What kind of teacher?” Data were collected from academics, graduate and undergraduate students, and in-service social studies teachers who participated in the International Social Studies Education Symposium held in June 2022. A total of 97 participants contributed their views and experiences during the stakeholder workshops conducted as part of the symposium. The data were analyzed using both deductive and inductive thematic analysis approaches. The findings indicate that, despite notable variations among stakeholder groups, common qualities emphasized for social studies teachers include subject matter knowledge, pedagogical competence, and technological proficiency. A smaller number of participants highlighted qualities such as having a project-oriented mindset and maintaining high motivation. The study offers important implications for the development of undergraduate social studies teacher education programs and highlights the potential role of the Social Studies Educators Association, along with other associations and civil society organizations with similar aims, in collaboratively establishing field-specific standards.

Keywords

• Comparative analysis
• Social studies education undergraduate program
• Stakeholders' perspectives

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Ethics Committee on Social Sciences and Humanities under approval number 2024/436 dated 27/11/2024.

Paydaş görüşlerine göre sosyal bilgiler öğretmeninde temel nitelikler: Karşılaştırmalı analiz

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı Türkiye'deki sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin sahip olması gereken temel nitelikleri paydaş görüşlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Nitel bir durum çalışması olarak tasarlanan bu araştırma, “Nasıl bir öğretmen?” sorusuna yanıt aramayı amaçlamaktadır. Veriler, Haziran 2022’de düzenlenen Uluslararası Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Sempozyumu’na katılan akademisyenler, lisansüstü ve lisans öğrencileri ile görev yapmakta olan sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinden toplanmıştır. Toplam 97 katılımcı, sempozyum kapsamında gerçekleştirilen paydaş çalıştayları sırasında görüş ve deneyimlerini paylaşmıştır. Veriler, tümdengelimsel ve tümevarımsal tematik analiz yaklaşımları birlikte kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, paydaşlar arasında bazı farklılıklar bulunmasına rağmen sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinde alan bilgisi, pedagojik yeterlik ve teknolojiye hâkimiyet gibi ortak niteliklerin öne çıktığını göstermektedir. Daha az sayıda katılımcı sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin proje kültürüne ve yüksek motivasyona sahip olması gerektiğini ifade etmiştir. Bu çalışma, sosyal bilgiler öğretmenliği lisans programlarının geliştirilmesine yönelik önemli çıkarımlar sunmakta ve Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimcileri Derneği’nin, benzer amaçlara sahip diğer dernekler ve sivil toplum kuruluşlarıyla birlikte, alana özgü standartların iş birliği içinde oluşturulmasındaki potansiyel rolüne dikkat çekmektedir.

Keywords

• Karşılaştırmalı analiz
• Paydaş bakış açıları
• Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenliği lisans programı

Ethical Statement

Araştırmanın etik kurul onayı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Etik Kurulu 27/11/2024 tarihinde 436 numarasıyla alınmıştır.

References

1. Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 329–351). Taylor and Francis e-Library.
2. Akarsu, A. H., Yılmazer, A., & Geçit, Y. (2020). Structure of social studies teacher training programs: comparison of programs in 2006-2018. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 56, 23-60.
3. Akıncı, M. (2021). Evaluation of measurement and evaluation in education curriculum (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Akdeniz University.
4. Arastaman, G. (2024). Nitel araştırmalarda güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. In F. Nayır & T. Atmaca (Eds.), Nitel araştırmalarda tasarım ve uygulama (pp. 61–71). Anı.
5. Avrupa Konseyi. (2018). Demokratik kültür yetkinlikleri referans çerçevesi: 1. cilt. https://rm.coe.int/rfcdc-1-turkish/1680a1458e
6. Barton, K. (2024). Knowledge without disciplines: A critique of social realism’s disciplinary fixation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 56(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2328058
7. Barton, K., & Avery, P. (2016). Research on social studies education: Diverse students, settings, and methods. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 985–1038). American Educational Research Association.
8. Başkale, H. (2016). Determination of validity, reliability, and sample size in qualitative studies. Dokuz Eylül University School of Nursing Electronic Journal, 9(1), 23–28.

9. Beldağ, A., & Nalçacı, A. (2021). Discussion of scholars’ views on the concept of value from various aspects. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 14, 31–63. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.288
10. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Pearson.
11. Bozkurt, D., & Levent, F. (2021). The relationship between teachers’ psychological resilience and burnout levels. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(44), 7968–8000. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.937692
12. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
13. Çiydem, E., & Kaymakçı, S. (2021). An evaluation of the direction of social studies course in Turkey. Human and Human, 8(27), 179–207. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.818742
14. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Editorial: Assessing assessment in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 187–191.
15. Conklin, H. G., & Andolina, M. W. (2025). Toward a more empathic, connected, and humanizing democracy: A civics curriculum centering listening and storytelling. Theory & Research in Social Education, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2025.2497232
16. Conrad, J., Reisman, A., Jay, L., Patterson, T., Eisman, J. I., Kaplan, A., & Chan, W. (2023). To whatends? Analyzing teacher candidates’ goals and perceptions of student talk in social studies discussions. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 47(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2022.01.003
17. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
18. Crocco, M. S., & Livingston, E. (2017). Becoming an “expert” social studies teacher. In M. M. Manfra & C. M. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 360–384). John Wiley & Sons.
19. Crook, C. (2015). The “digital native” in context: Tensions associated with importing Web 2.0 practices into the school setting. In S. Livingstone & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Digital technologies in the lives of young people (pp. 63–80). Routledge.
20. Cuenca, A. (2020). Reforming the idea of social studies teacher education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(3), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2020.1767485
21. Cuenca, A. (2021). Proposing core practices for social studies teacher education: A qualitative content analysis of inquiry-based lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 298–313.
22. Dinkelman, T., & Cuenca, A. (2020). A turn to practice: Core practices in social studies teacher education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(4), 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2020.1757538
23. Doğanay, A. (2008). Çağdaş sosyal bilgiler anlayışı ışığında yeni sosyal bilgiler programının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the new social studies curriculum in the light of the contemporary social studies approach.]. Çukurova University Social Sciences Institute Journal, 17(2), 77-96.
24. Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Alanları Değerlendirme ve Akreditasyon Derneği (EPDAD). (2016). Öğretmen eğitiminde program değerlendirme ve akreditasyon el kitabı [Teacher education program evaluation and accreditation manual]. İstanbul, Türkiye: EPDAD. https://epdad.org.tr/data/genel/pdf/akr_el_kitabi.pdf
25. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage Publications.
26. Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? Teachers College Press.
27. Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high‐stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473418
28. Forlin, C. (2010). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(3), 177–184.
29. Forzani, F. (2014). Understanding the core practices and practice‐based teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.
30. Fraenkel, J. R. (1994). Characteristics and behaviors of effective social studies teachers in selected countries. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED388543.pdf
31. Gençtürk, E., Akbaş, Y., & Kaymakçı, S. (2012). Qualifications of an ideal teacher according to social studies preservice teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(2), 1559–1572.
32. Ghousseini, H., Kavanagh, S. S., Dutro, E., & Kazemi, E. (2022). The fourth wall of professional learning and cultures of collaboration. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 216–222. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0013189X211058751
33. Glaser B., Strauss A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Routledge.
34. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Longman Group Ltd.
35. Greenhow, C., Galvin, S. M., Brandon, D. L., & Askari, E. (2020). A decade of research on K–12 teaching and teacher learning with social media: Insights on the state of the field. Teachers College Record, 122(6), 1–72.
36. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906
37. Hancock, R. D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. Teachers College Press.
38. Hansen, D. T. (2008). Values and purpose in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 10–26). Routledge.
39. Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2014). The practical turn in teacher education: Designing a preparation sequence for core practice framework. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113518584
40. Jay, L. P. (2025). Social Studies Teacher Education and the Legacy of PCK: Exploring Situated Theories of Preservice Teacher Development. The Teacher Educator, 60(1), 117-137.
41. Kargın, T. (2004). Integration: definition, development, and principles. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 5, 1–13.
42. Kartal, Ş., & Bektaş, Ö. (2020). Being an innovative teacher in 21st century: Studying innovative perception and qualities of social studies pre-service teachers. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 5(11), 423–504.
43. Kavanagh, S. S. (2022). Toward nonbinary theories of practice in teacher education research. Educational Researcher, 51(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211052058
44. Kaymakcı, S., & Öztürk, T. (2011). The panorama of social studies education in Turkey. Education Sciences, 6(2), 1852-1867.
45. Kırbaç, M., & Kaya, F. (2023). Investigation of the relationship between teachers' teaching motivation and their level of dedication to the teaching profession. RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 13, 642–657. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1379204
46. Kızıltaş, Y. (2023). A modern problem faced by primary school students in disadvantaged regions: The teacher influencer. International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE), 12(2), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.55020/iojpe.1136991
47. Kocasaraç, H., & Karataş, H. (2018). The innovative teacher characteristics: a scale development study. Usak University Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 34–57.
48. Küçükahmet, L. (2007). Evaluation of the undergraduate programs of teacher education introduced in 2006-2007 educational year. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 5 (2), 203-218.
49. Levy, B. L. M., Busey, C. L., Cuenca, A., Evans, R. W., Halvorsen, A. L., Ho, L. C., … McGrew, S. (2023). Social studies education research for sustainable democratic societies: Addressing persistent civic challenges. Theory & Research in Social Education, 51(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2158149
50. Lim, W. M., Gupta, G., Biswas, B., & Gupta, R. (2022). Collaborative consumption continuance: A mixed-methods analysis of the service quality-loyalty relationship in ride-sharing services. Electronic Markets, 32(3), 1463–1484.
51. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
52. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113493807
53. Merryfield, M. M. (1992). Preparing social studies teachers for the twenty-first century: Perspectives on program effectiveness from a study of six exemplary teacher education programs in global education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 20(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1992.10505657
54. National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS]. (1993). The Social Studies Professional. National Council for the Social Studies.
55. National Council for the Social Studies. (2023). Powerful teaching and learning in social studies. Author. https://www.socialstudies.org/position-statements/powerful-teaching-and-learning-social-studies
56. Ningsih, T. Z., Aman, A., Nasrulloh, A., Ofianto, O., Erniwati, E., Asri, Z., … Firza, F. (2025). Enhancing communication and collaboration skills through discovery, cooperative and problem-based learning models in Social Studies education. Cogent Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2500110
57. Nyimbili, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: English Language, Teaching, Literature, Linguistics & Communication, 5(1), 90–99.
58. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en
59. Öztürk, C. (2015). Sosyal bilgiler: Toplumsal yaşama disiplinler arası bir bakış [Social studies: An interdisciplinary perspective on social life]. In C. Öztürk (Ed.), Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi [Social studies education] (pp. 1–31). Pegem Akademi.
60. Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. Teachers’ College Press.
61. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and education methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
62. Payne, K. A., Falkner, A., Adair, J. K., Lee, S., McManus, M. E., Sachdeva, S., & Sánchez Suzuki Colegrove, K. (2025). Child-focused civics: Seeing civic action in young children’s everyday interactions. Theory & Research in Social Education, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2025.2522112
63. Perez, E., Manca, S., Fernández-Pascual, R., & McGuckin, C. (2023). A systematic review of social media as a teaching and learning tool in higher education: A theoretical grounding perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 11921–11950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11647-2
64. Powell, D. (2018). Brother, can you paradigm? Toward a theory of pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117708553
65. Rósa, B. (2024). In pursuit of social emotional learning in a Swedish pre-service teacher education programme: A qualitative study of intended curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 142, 104527.
66. Rosenberg, J. M., Borchers, C., Stegenga, S. M., Burchfield, M. A., Anderson, D., & Fischer, C. (2022). How educational institutions reveal students’ personally identifiable information on Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 49(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2140672
67. Rubin, R. B., & Feezel, J. D. (1986). Elements of teacher communication competence. Communication Education, 35(3), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528609388348
68. Russell, T. E., & Morrow, J. E. (1986). Reform in teacher education: Perceptions of secondary social studies teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 14(4), 325–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1986.10505530
69. Sağdıç, M. (2018). The comparison of social studies teaching undergraduate programs applied in 2006 and 2018 in Turkey. International Journal of Social and Educational Sciences, 5(10), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.20860/ijoses.488657
70. Saputra, R. T., & Darmawan, D. (2023). Improving teacher performance through effective leadership, work discipline, and work motivation. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 2(2), 31–36.
71. Savina, E., Fulton, C., & Beaton, C. (2025). Teacher emotional competence: A conceptual model. Educational Psychology Review, 37(2), 1–34.
72. Schiera, A. J., & del Calvo, A. O. (2025). What youth want from discussions: Practice, participation, and democracy in social studies (teacher) education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2025.2517327
73. Schleicher, A. (2011). Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264113046-en
74. Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.006
75. Shaver, J. (2001). The future of research on social studies—for what purpose? In W. Stanley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the twenty-first century (pp. 231–252). Information Age.
76. Shelton, C., Schroeder, S., & Curcio, R. (2020). Instagramming their hearts out: What do edu-influencers share on Instagram? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(3), 529–554.
77. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
78. Shulman, L. S (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
79. Sığrı, Ü. (2021). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Beta.
80. Siri, A., Supartha, I. W. G., Sukaatmadja, I. P. G., & Rahyuda, A. G. (2020). Does teacher competence and commitment improve teachers’ professionalism? Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1781993. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1781993
81. Stake, R. E. (2011). Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 180–201.
82. Sumuer, E., Esfer, S., & Yildirim, S. (2014). Teachers’ Facebook use: Their use habits, intensity, self-disclosure, privacy settings, and activities on Facebook. Educational Studies, 40(5), 537–553.
83. Swan, K., & Griffin, S. (2013). Beating the odds: The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for social studies state standards. Social Education, 77(6), 317–321.
84. Tay, B., Ocakcı, E., & Çoban, E. (2024). Life science education during pre-literacy period: Preservice primary school teachers’ opinions on the matter. Pamukkale University Journal of Education [PUJE], 61, 266-295. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1352509
85. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2017). Öğretmen strateji belgesi: 2017–2023 [Teacher strategy document: 2017–2023]. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of Teacher Training and Development). Türkiye. http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_07/26174415_Strateji_Belgesi_RG-Ylan-_26.07.2017.pdf
86. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2017b). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [General competencies for the teaching profession]. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü [General Directorate of Teacher Training and Development]. Türkiye
87. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2017). Okullarda sosyal medya kullanımı [Use of social media in schools]. Türkiye. https://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/1833.pdf
88. Tonga, D. (2012). Evaluation of social studies education undergraduate program. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 10 (4), 780-803.
89. Tonga, D. (2020). The social studies education undergraduate programs in Turkey over the last twenty years. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 20(3), 1547–1564. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020..-542763
90. Tünkler, V. (2021). Preservice social studies teachers' motivations to teaching: an expectancy-value model. Turkish Journal of Social Research, 46(207), 339–354.
91. Turan, R. (2023). History of social studies teacher training in Turkey. The Journal of International Turkish Language & Literature Research, 13, 1282–1312.
92. Uçar, K., & Şimşek, U. (2022). The impact of authentic materials in the life sciences class on the learning of students at stage with moderate intellectual disability. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 10(4), 599–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1181680
93. Uslu, S. (2013). The investigation of social studies education undergraduate program in terms of social studies teachers' special field competencies. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 4(12), 126-139.
94. Yaylak, E. (2020). Evaluation of teaching methods and practices of social studies teachers. Ahi Evran University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 6(1), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.621664
95. Yetişensoy, O., & Demir, M. (2023). Examining the example of the social studies teaching undergraduate program implemented in the United States. Anatolian Journal of Language and Education, 1(1), 30–40.
96. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
97. Yıldırım, G., & Baki Pala, Ç. (2024). The status of social studies teacher training programs before the delegation of authority by the Council of Higher Education. Trakya Journal of Education, 14(3), 1719-1741. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1446713
98. Yıldız, D., Karaca, Ş., & Bakırcı, Ş. (2022). A review on teachers' communication skills. Artvin Coruh University International Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.22466/acusbd.1062068
99. Yılmaz, A., & Gazel, A. A. (2017). The study of teacher’s questions asked in 4th and 7th social sciences classes according to bloom taxonomy’s cognitive domain. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(2), 173–186.
100. Zhang, X., Wen, D., Liang, J., & Lei, J. (2017). How the public uses social media WeChat to obtain health information in China: A survey study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 17, 72–79.
101. Zhu, C., Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers’ innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 9-27.