The Social Studies (2014) 105, 80–90 Copyright C ⃝ Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X online DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2013.850053 Learning and Teaching about Social Studies and Science: A Collaborative Self-Study THEODORE CHRISTOU 1 and SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK 2 1 Queen’s University, Faculty of Education, Kingston, Ontario, Canada 2 Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Education, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada This collaborative self-study article explores experiences teaching a cross-curricular undergraduate course that aimed to integrate social studies and science. The course differs from other compulsory components of the teacher candidates’ program of study in that it concentrates on disciplinary structure, as opposed to methods, and it treats two subjects—social studies and science—as opposed to one. For teacher educators charged with instructing curriculum methods courses, particularly elementary social studies and science classes,as well as for administrators planning creative responses to challenges posed by congested teacher education programs, the following study offers reflections on the benefits and pitfalls of cross-curricular courses. Furthermore, it comments on the relative merits of investigating social studies and science as disciplines to be explored rather than as sets of skills or content to be mastered. Keywords: cross-curriclar, disciplinary structure, integration, science, social studies Introduction Teacher education reform is certainly not a new phe- nomenon. For decades, educational reformers have sought to improve the quality of preservice teacher education through local and provincial initiatives with the goal of better preparing teachers for the challenges of teaching stu- dents in the K–12 system. Unfortunately, the history of ed- ucational reform efforts is, by and large, a grim story. Sara- son (2002) opined that wide-scale educational reform had not occurred, despite many attempts, due in large part to the complexity of the structures that accompany schooling at all levels. His latest conclusion was not surprising given that just six years earlier, Sarason (1996) had concluded that reform to the K–12 system would not occur unless new teachers experienced the same kinds of learning expe- riences (defined as “contexts of productive learning” (343) during their preservice teacher education programs. The burden of educational reform, then, seems to fall squarely on the shoulders of teacher educators. Although the edu- cation professoriate continues to try to improve schooling, Labaree (2005) reminds us that teacher educators face an inherently uphill battle. He cites (187–90) four reasons that teacher educators have historically existed “on the mar- Address correspondence to Theodore Christou, Queen’s Uni- versity, Faculty of Education, A29, Duncan McArthur Hall, 511 Union Street, Kingston, ON, K7M 5R7, Canada. E-mail: theodore.christou@queensu.ca gins” of teacher education reform: education professors have low status both in the academy and in the teaching profession, teaching teachers is an extraordinarily difficult practice that seems easy, education professors are thought of as being “predictable” in their assertions about the im- portance of child-centered education, and we are seen as the defenders of the status quo. Despite the problems associated with educational re- form, there has recently been a push in many teacher ed- ucation programs across Canada to improve the quality of their teacher education programs. Recent working con- ferences of teacher educators from across Canada (Falken- berg and Smits 2010) have resulted in considerable thinking and scholarship around the nature of reform in Canadian teacher education programs. It is within this context of re- form that this article is based. The authors continue their commitment to develop their pedagogies of teacher education through collaborative self- study that began when both of us were doctoral students. Our first study helped us to name and understand the tensions inherent to our roles as teacher educators for a “theory” course (Theodore, Philosophy of Education) and a “practical” course (Shawn, Professional Studies and Practicum Supervision). The “sacred story” (Connelly and Clandinin 1995, 6) of the divide between theory and prac- tice, familiar to anyone who has taught in a teacher edu- cation program, provided a backdrop for our exploration of the challenges of teaching future teachers who come to classes expecting a focus on either theory (e.g., Philosophy) or practice (e.g., Professional Studies). A significant result