Search

This mixed-methods study explored the factors secondary history teachers use to determine historical content for their classrooms and the degree of perceived control in decision-making. Through a survey (N = 260) and follow-up interviews (n = 23), we found that secondary history teachers in the United States ranked historical significance most highly in their curricular decision-making, but the extent to which teachers felt they were able to exert control over curricular decisions was influenced by required assessments and other contextual factors. Nevertheless, many teachers also prioritized student interest and relevance when choosing historical content. Interviews revealed complexity in teachers' thinking and additional context-specific (dis)incentives (e.g., fear of controversy) regarding curricular choices. Implications for teacher education and policy are emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using an analytical framework based on the concept of historical distance, this article explores how Dutch history teachers and educators navigate between the past and the present when making curriculum decisions on the sensitive topic of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and Slavery. Four history teachers and 2 museum educators were selected on the criteria of ethnicity, professional context, and student audience. They were interviewed twice, using open questions and a task-based design directed at 14–15-year-old students of various cultural backgrounds. Two conclusions are drawn: (1) the curriculum decisions of the selected participants can be interpreted as configurations of historical distance, which are the result of interactions between various types of knowledge, values, and beliefs. Some participants make a distinction between their own personal distancing and the curriculum decisions they take, while others do not or are unsure about deciding, and (2) curriculum decisions are difficult to predict. Some teachers and educators have a preference for certain distancing approaches but do not always follow it, depending on the historical sources they are dealing with. The conclusion discusses how research on history teaching can be facilitated by a deeper comprehension of the decisions teachers and educators make as navigators of historical distance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this study, the effects of a disciplinary reading and writing curriculum intervention with professional development are shared. We share our instructional approach and provide writing outcomes for struggling adolescent readers who read at or below basic proficiency levels, as well as writing outcomes for proficient and advanced readers. Findings indicate significant and meaningful growth of about 0.5 of 1 standard deviation in students’ abilities to write historical arguments and in the length of their essays for all participants, including struggling readers. Our study also considers teacher implementation of the curriculum intervention. We found that teachers who were most faithful to the underlying constructs of our curriculum intervention also made successful adaptations of the lesson materials. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author looks at subject-field disputes about what to teach in the field of social studies in the U.S. He identifies the selection of subject matter to teach as a first source of conflict about the field's nature given the scope of history, geography and other social sciences. Other topics discussed include the role of representation in teaching, the creation of a definitive agreement of what to teach and a body of knowledge, skills, attitudes and orientations that will benefit students.

The purpose of this article is to explore three fifth grade students' misremembering of the beginnings of American history as a form of mediated action, active agents using cultural tools provided by a sociocultural seting to represent and interpret the past (Wertsch, 2000). Data come from a 10-month qualitative case study of history instruction in one fourth grelementary ade and two fifth grade classrooms, and include student interviews, videotaped observations of lessons, and curricular materials and student work. Drawing on Wertsch's (2002, 2004) distinction between specific narratives and schematic narrative templates, the author argues that three fifth grade students' mistaken narration of the beginnings of American history was informed by their use of a schematic narrative template that was present in the enacted curriculum. The author concludes the article with a discussion of the implications of the presence of this cultural tool and its use by students for the teaching of history and students' development of a usable historical past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes to research on the impact of high stakes accountability on social studies teaching where it is not tested by the state, and addresses the question of what is happening in middle and higher performing versus struggling schools (Wills, 2007). The author presents complex findings from a qualitative study in five California classrooms spanning grades four through seven. Different from previous accounts of social studies under high stakes accountability, teachers in these middle and higher performing, middle class settings were generally satisfied with their social studies teaching. Yet observations revealed that in combination with other factors, accountability did influence social studies gatekeeping, or teachers' curricular-instructional decision making, in both direct and indirect ways. Its impact varied according to school performance status and student demographics, combined with other factors. A few teachers embraced the goals of raising test scores and developing skills in literacy, but in the lowest performing school with the most students of color, academic literacy skills training interfered with exploration of history. The author closes with questions raised by the study and recommendations for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding world history is critical for our development as citizens in our interconnected society. Yet it is not clear that the standards for world history courses in the U.S. foster understanding of the whole world or of its history. The authors argue that the high school world history standards mapped out by various states promulgate a Eurocentric orientation, particularly in the treatment of events before 1945. Moreover, even when they purport to use a global approach, state world history standards do little to implement a vision of world history that emphasizes global connections, cross-cultural interactions, world-systems, or the commonality of human experience. Examining the topics listed as important to know in U.S. state high school world history standards and the organization of these standards, the researchers found that although several state standards have been influenced by the thematic or chronological approaches advocated by world historians, with two exceptions, state standards conceptualize world history through a "western" rather than global lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this historical analysis is to determine the origins of the American elementary history/social studies curriculum and to determine how nationalism affected the curriculum as it progressed in the early twentieth century. The Committee of Eight (Co8), established by the American Historical Association in 1905, created the first national report on the teaching of elementary history and civics. Factors influencing the resultant curriculum, s~"h as the pressure for diverse membership, the curriculum established in European countries, the growth and development of American identity and pride, the massive expansion of public schooling, and regulations on teacher certification are examined. A combination of demands resulted in an elementary history curriculum that was nationalistic in perspective, as the report recommended American history to be the sole focus of study in grades one through eight. Comparisons and implications for the present day elementary history curriculum are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the actual use of computer technology by four beginning social studies teachers in their history courses during their first year in the classroom. Specifically, it involved an assessment of their efforts to use computer technology to teach their students about historical thinking and historical inquiry, in particular the concepts of perspective taking and historical empathy. The findings suggest that the beliefs the beginning social studies teachers in this study brought to the classroom profoundly impacted their students' appreciation of history. During their induction into the profession, these teachers focused on professional concerns, including the lack of effective support for the successful integration of technology in their classroom. Regardless of the resources that were available, each teacher's sense of self-efficacy and their students' dispositions created unique personal responses to the challenges posed by their particular school's technology infrastructure and culture. These teachers also often had difficulty using computers to engage their students in historical inquiry, especially when they tried to help their students grasp the concepts of historical thinking and historical empathy. The experiences they had in their teacher preparation program profoundly impacted these teachers' beliefs about using technology in the classroom as well as their efforts to integrate technology into their curriculum. As they attempted to integrate technology into their curriculum, they developed their own pedagogical content knowledge about teaching with computers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a strategy in citizenship education about war and peace through a study of the history of the Vietnam War through oral history. Activities for students in a Vietnam War course; Components of the Vietnam War course; Information on email interviews for the course.

Over the pass two decades, interest in Holocaust education has grown substantially as individual states, starting in the 1980s, began to mandate and/or recommend Holocaust of studies as part of the social studies curriculum. As a result, these mandates and/or interest in the Holocaust have spawned any number of curriculum products, some of which seek less to help the student of history acquire an understanding of this historical event, and more in terms of dictating to the social studies what he or she should understand. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to critique Holocaust curricula that have been developed under the auspices of a state department of education (SDE) or endorsed by a SDE, as we believe that teachers unfamiliar with the Holocaust will turn to these products as sources of authority. We base this critique on what we refer to as three approaches or considerations to understanding history—the body of work on historical thinking which we view as the underpinning of historical empathy and positionality, historical empathy as articulated by Elizabeth Yeager, O.L. Davis, Jr. and Stuart Foster, and the guidelines on teaching the Holocaust development for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum by William Parsons and Samuel Totten. These three elements, each in their own way, help us to understand the challenge for teachers and students whose foundations for understanding the Holocaust may solely rest upon curriculum products whose curriculum aims and/or designs often obstruct the quest to "understand," e.g., lack of historical accuracy, lack of depth, and historical gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new democratic dispensation in South Africa since 1994 has necessitated the development of a new approach to history as a school subject in the framework of the recently inaugurated Curriculum 2005. The new education authorities regard history as one of the keys to a new social and political dispensation, especially in view of its abuse during the apartheid era. This article briefly covers history curriculum development during the pre-1994 apartheid era, and also the various efforts since 1994 to ensure the development and future of a history curriculum suitable for the new democracy in South Africa. Two problem areas are discussed, viz, the role of the Government in these efforts and the constraints of integrating history into the Curriculum 2005 learning program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article mantises the socialization of student teachers in secondary history classrooms. Specifically, the article examines student teachers' responses to a history-intensive social studies methods court and their subsequent uses of document-based instruction. The analysis grounded in data collected frost interviews, lesson plans, and written reflections, supported previous research regarding student teachers' active participation in their socialization process. The findings also provide further insights into the complex relationship between teacher education and student teacher's beliefs and practices. The article ends with a discussion of ways in which methods coursework might be designed to better enable students teachers to introduce document-based instruction into existing secondary history classrooms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This eighth-grade study is situated in the larger arena of current policies concorning the reform of history and social studies education. After describing how the study and others like it might be useful in informing reform policy considerations, this report provides a brief portrait of how the teacher taught a unit on North American Colonization to outline the classroom context. Second, it describes six eighth-graders' prior knowledge of colonial American history derived from in-depth interviews conducted before the students studied the historical period. Third, a section then is devoted to interview responses from the six students that were collected about two weeks after the conclusion of the history unit. This third section addresses the ways in which students made sense of the content in the context of their classroom experiences. Drawing from the work on context of studying history done by Dickinson and Lee (1984) particularly, results are discussed in the context of three interrelated but problematic points concerning current reforms: (a) enhancing historical understanding (beyond mere fact acquisition), (b) constructing compelling rationales for the study of history, and (c) developing more powerful and valid assessment tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Albert Bushnell Hart was a leading figure during a critical period in the development of history education in the United States. Throughout his career as a professor of history and government at Harvard University (1883-1926), he made many contributions, arguably more than anyone else of his generation, to history's emergence as a modern school subject and to its inclusion as a core component of the school curriculum. In doing so, he helped fashion the door through which social studies subsequently entered the schools. His career, therefore, offers an interesting and enlightening perspective on both the theoretical and institutional foundations of social studies education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is an examination of the divide between high school students' conceptions of historical inquiry and those articulated in current proposals for curricular and instructional reform. The author argues that students acquire stubborn misconceptions in the course of schooling about what constitutes historical knowledge; specifically, students learn that historical truth is taught by teacher and text, and that photography and film provide a mirror of the facts. Such learning impedes students' grasp of the contextualized, creative, intentioned, and tentative nature of historical interpretation and representation, and so constitutes a significant obstacle to reform. Drawing upon data from a case study of one class that seemingly exemplified the spirit of reform, upon theoretical perspectives of inquiry and representation, and upon empirical research about teaching and learning across the curriculum, the author maintains that successful reform requires instruction that both shifts the locus of authority from the teacher and text to a shared process of critical inquiry, and through this process of critical inquiry directly challenges students beliefs about knowledge and representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a means of reforming the social studies curriculum in early childhood education, some have suggested replacing the typical here-and-now, expanding communities approach with the study of history presented through story and myth. Such study, they argue, is more likely to interest children and entice them to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of citizens in a democracy. Rather than revolving around stories and myths, however, the study of history should focus on concepts considered key to the field and on children's understanding of these concepts. Only as children are able to construct everyday or spontaneous concepts of history during their early years will they be ready later to learn the complex scientific concepts characterizing the field of history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

England's new, centrally imposed National History Curriculum was introduced into state-maintained schools in September, 1991. The curriculum is based on a linear theory of cognitive development and on Bruner's conception of cognitive development and a spiral curriculum. This notion of progression in historical thinking is written into attainment targets (assessment objectives) which, with their associated statements of attainment, serve as criteria for measuring student thinking throughout the school years. In this discussion, I first examine the National History Curriculum critically, by noting that such a mechanistic model, with its supposedly clear-cut description of progression in historical thinking, may have little to do with the perceptions of teachers, the realities of the classroom, and the findings of research on students' historical understanding. I then measure the theory, content, and prescriptions of the National History Curriculum against the research literature, and conclude that these assessment programs may lead to assessment-led teaching. This in turn could result ma lowering of teacher expectations of student potential for genuine historical thinking. I conclude by suggesting an alternative method for assessing students' historical thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to their first curriculum unit (on history and the work of historians) in a U.S. history course, three classes of fifth graders stated what they knew (or thought was true) about history and what they wanted to learn about it. After the unit, they reported what they had learned. In addition, a stratified sample of ten students was interviewed concerning the details of their thinking about several key subtopics. Following the unit, the students' knowledge and thinking about history had become notably more sophisticated. Even so, certain misconceptions still persisted in some of the students and all of them still had difficulty understanding how they might use historical knowledge in their lives outside of school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the research on historical understanding has been based on the Piagetian concept of global stage constraints on learning. Such research has led to arguments against teaching history at the elementary level and lent support to the traditional "expanding environments" curriculum. This paper contrasts Piagetian-based research with psychological work in the areas of script knowledge-based and domain-specific knowledge restructuring theories of development. Drawing on ideas from interpretive anthropology and semiotics, the authors then place this primarily psychological work in a cultural framework, and give consideration to the relevance of theories of narrative for studying historical understanding. Using this approach, the authors suggest both new directions for studying the development of historical understanding and implications for history instruction in the elementary years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the response of Michael Whelan to the five critiques for his report "History and the Social Studies: A Response to the Critics" in the Winter 1992 issue of "Theory and Research in Social Research." Whelan responds all the critiques individually for each raises issues that need to be addressed individually. Whelan highlights some issues about social studies and explains his conception of history education. He expresses his thoughts about the critiques towards history-centered curriculum proposal.

The recommendation of both the Bradley Commission and the National Commission on Social Studies that the study of history should form the core of the social studies curriculum has intensified the long-standing debate among educators about the nature of social studies education. This article is a response to three of the sharpest critiques of recommendation: first, that a history-centered curriculum is an ideologically conservative idea; second, that history's claim to a central place in the curriculum is not supported by empirical evidence; and third, that an integrated study of social problems is the proper focus of social studies education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the early years of the twentieth century, educators challenged the traditional organization and content of the high school curriculum, including the social studies. Nevertheless, many teachers continued their loyalty to an elitist curriculum until World War I, which served as a catalyst for rapid change in the teaching of history, geography, and current events. Indicators of that change are found in the methods and professional journals of that period, particularly The History Teacher's Magazine. Social studies in public schools after WWI was more like our current curriculum than like the history and geography taught prior to the War. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author offers a critique on Kieran Egan's views on teaching social studies. For Egan, social studies should be abolished and instead students ought to be taught academic history. Egan further asserts that social studies is founded on misguided perceptions of children's cognitive development. It is the opinion of the author that Egan has misinterpreted the stance of John Dewey on social studies curriculum. The author also addressed the other arguments raised by Egan like students not needing to reach their own interpretations of history.

As the work of FitzGerald (1979) and Barth and Shermis (1980) has shown, the analysis of textbooks provides important insight into schooling and the teaching of history. This paper raises the methodological issue of the selection of textbooks for analysis and argues, using data from school district Annual Reports and other sources, that the textbook samples analyzed by these authors were not representative of textbooks used in schools. Thus, whilst the significance of the work of these authors is acknowledged, it is argued that until the textbooks analyzed are truly representative of those adopted by schools, generalizations about the teaching of history and the development of the curriculum must be treated with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers comments concerning Michael Whelan's report "History and the Social Studies: A Response to the Critics" in the Winter 1992 issue of "Theory and Research in Social Research." The response focuses on the first sentence in the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 11 of Whelan's article. It is believed that the study of history itself should be organized around the study of historical problems. It is emphasized that the study of social issues with serious attention to the historical antecedents.