At long last.

Horton, T., & Barnett, J. (2008). Thematic Unit Planning in Social Studies: Make It Focused and Meaningful. Canadian Social Studies, 41(1), 22-31.

To attain citizenship goals and help in the making of contributing members of society, educators should be facilitating the learning of topics which add to students’ understanding of themselves and of the world. This is the statement Horton and Barnett make in “Thematic Unit Planning in Social Studies: Make It Focused and Meaningful.”
In this article, the authors outline the concept of a thematic unit, listing its possible components, and explaining the steps to creating authentic units which will provide meaning for students, thus leading them to active citizenship. The main point of the article revolves around what the authors call the “Big Understanding.” In no part of the article is there practical evidence of the theory, and no backing of the “Big Understanding” with structured arguments, only name dropping of scholarly writers of other articles to refer to for more information. While they go into considerable depth explaining what a thematic unit is and what steps to take to make such a unit, the authors do not address how this type of unit organizer differs from the others mentioned in the article, such as the narrative, issue, inquiry, problem or project methods. Themed units can focus on events, eras, phenomena, people, concepts or entities, though a theme does not necessarily mean that the unit is truly focused. To provide focus and to evoke value, units should not cover overly extensive amounts of content; rather they should be limited in scope. Teachers preparing unit plans, according to Horton and Barnett, should ask themselves “What is the point of teaching this topic to students?” and “What makes this topic important?” By asking these key questions, teachers are putting themselves in the mindset of both the student and the active participant in society, themselves: the teacher.
The “Big Understanding” should be briefly stated in language appropriate to the age and grade level of the class. By avoiding absolute terms and using instead qualifying words such as ‘often’ or ‘usually’ when stating the “Big Understanding,” teachers can expand upon exceptions during class to strengthen student understanding of course content. It is imperative that students are made aware of how they will be assessed, the criteria for evaluation and last but certainly not least, the “Big Understanding” sentence. Concepts of this overarching statement need to be explored to bring all students to approximately the same level of prior knowledge, always seeking to make the class as relevant as possible, and continuing to cue the learners to the references to the “Big Understanding.” I am in agreement with Horton and Barnett, that if adolescents are not provided with the perspectives that translate to greater understanding of themselves and of the world, the purpose of the exercise will not be achieved, let alone the long-lasting potential of its message.
By successfully undertaking units that add relevance, students can move beyond personal motives and egocentric views, have a connection with others and be more intimately invested in the greater common good of this democratic society. The “Big Understanding” does have the potential to raise critical thinking levels, inspire continued search for truth and broaden the scope of an individual student’s stance, even when the unit topic is narrow in scope.
I would wager that despite the lack of developed arguments, Horton and Barnett’s article is not overly idealistic, does not raise red caution flags and they do make logical, practical sense of the undertaking of a unit plan. Surely the proposition led by the authors will not only lead to greater content retention and understanding, but will also lesson teacher burnout, infusing purpose and excitement back into the classroom.