Breadth vs. Depth in Curriculum

 Breadth vs. Depth in Curriculum

Social Studies Curriculum

For many decades, history teachers in the United States have had to make hard choices about what topics to teach in class and how in depth to go into each topic. All teachers want their students to learn the most information as possible but also want students to have more than a surface level understanding of each topic. This causes the age-old debate in teaching U.S. history: Breadth or depth of material?

Each teacher has their own beliefs and preferences, and an argument can be made for either side. Some teachers who go for breadth believe that the only way to deliver such a large amount of information to students is through the traditional lecture/notes method. This traditional method is also usually paired with traditional assessment methods (i.e. tests, quizzes, extended response questions). Others argue that in order to prepare our students to be informed citizens, it is more important for them to develop critical thinking skills rather than rout memorization (Benziger, 2023). Teachers who follow this path tend to go for depth of understanding and utilize projects as assessments in order to allow students to utilize their critical thinking skills.

No matter what a teacher chooses (i.e. breadth or depth), one problem all U.S. teachers face is the lack or inaccuracy of information related to minorities in our country. Most textbooks display stories of White domination over Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (Gellman, 2024). While the amount of importance of minority perspectives has increased over time, there are still harmful depictions that are being perpetuated through our U.S. History curricula. When creating history curriculum and lessons, it is important to include stories that are accurate and representative of our often racist and colonial past.

Argument for Breadth

Some teachers and curricula writers believe that in order for students to become informed citizens, we should be teaching a breadth of topics. According to this perspective, introducing students to key ideas, concepts, and events will give them a foundational understanding of the chronological order of events in U.S. history (Mehta, 2015). They can use this foundational knowledge to connect concepts and events over different time periods and organize them into a coherent argument about the past. These teachers argue that not all students will become historians but giving them a foundational understanding will help them be successful in higher level history classes (Mehta, 2015).

Argument for Depth

Other teachers believe that depth allows for a better understanding of our history and builds key skills that students may not get by skimming through topics. One key argument for depth is that it allows for more student choice in what they are learning about which increases their intrinsic motivation to engage in the course content (Mehta, 2015). These teachers also argue that there is increased comprehension on the topics when students are allowed to dive deeper into the events and the perspectives of different groups of people (Mehta, 2015). 

Can We Have Both?

According to research conducted by Pearcy & Duplass (2011), there are many strategies for combining breadth and depth! These two teaching styles are more intertwined than they may initially seem as it is impossible to think deeply about an event without an understanding of the broader historical context. It also does not benefit students if they are learning about a variety of topics without integrating them to see a full picture of our history. In order to integrate them, teachers and curricula writers can utilize essential questions that integrate breadth and depth. They can also incorporate projects as the summative assessment method as students must use their general knowledge to go in depth into one or two specific topics.

References

Benziger, K. (2023). “History Teaching, National Myths, and Civil Society.” Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 13(4), 502–514.

Gellman, M. (2024). Misrepresentation and Silence in United States History Textbooks: The Politics of Historical Oblivion. Palgrave Macmillan.

 

Mehta, J. (2015). Breadth and Depth: Can We Have It Both Ways? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-breadth-and-depth-can-we-have-it-both-ways/2015/07

Pearcy, M., & Duplass, J. A. (2011). Teaching History: Strategies for Dealing with Breadth and Depth in the Standards and Accountability Age. The Social Studies, 102(3), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2010.525546