In this course of study, I am interested in various ways in which people learn, preferably through kinetics or in a physical manner. I would like to see if students can embrace and improve their learning about culture and social studies through kinetics or is it just best to teach the student in a "typical classroom setting" with desk, books and a blackboard. I would like discover if there is any difference in the socio-economic status and how they learn and are accommodations in various learning are being met. According to Howard Gardner, there are multiple intelligence and various ways in which student can comprehend and obtain information. It would be interesting to see if socio-economic factors play a role in multiple intelligence and in which ways (e.g. a student who may not have pen and paper to retain information because they lack the materials, would creating a song help them remember – musical intelligence?).
While exploring sources for my Literary Review, I came across two very different research materials Levstik's (Stephen J. Thornton) Chapter 2 Continuity and change in Social Studies, in Handbook of Research on Social Studies Education and a chapter titled Identifying and Educating Poor and Under-represented Gifted Students, in The International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent by Heller, Mõnks, Sternberg and Subotnik. In the chapter, Continuity and Change in Social Studies, in Handbook of Research on Social Studies Education, Thornton explains his research of continuity and change in teaching social studies. According to Thornton, "social studies curriculum holds potential to shape young peoples' world views" (Levstik 47), so there has always been some sort of pressure to either preserve or change it. However, Thornton believes that since the beginning of the social studies field in the earlier decades of the 20th century, curriculum has gone back and forth on what should be taught (Levstik 48), causing a struggle over social studies remaining the same or progressing as time changes.