The Evolving Concept Instructional Strategy:
Students Reflecting on Their Processing of
Multiple, Conflicting, Historical Sources
Jeffery D Nokes
Brigham Young University
Healthy skepticism is a useful attribute in historical inquiry. In a discipline that is full of controversy, historians carefully question each piece of evidence. Does it come from a reliable source? Who was the intended audience? How does it compare to other evidence? Does it make sense given the context of its creation (Wineburg, 1991)? In addition, historians also question themselves and other historians (Wineburg, 1998). Is my background sufficient to fully comprehend the message in this document? Do we have enough evidence to be confident in this interpretation? Whose voices are missing from our evidence? How might a new historical find alter even our most basic understanding of an event? Historical inquiry is driven by the notion that no source can be taken at face value, no interpretation can be certain, and no idea is above critique.
One of the great ironies of secondary history classrooms is the lack of skepticism on the part of adolescent students, who otherwise tend to be doubtful by nature. These same students, who developmentally have a tendency to distrust authority and question what they are told, seem to check their skepticism at the door of their history classroom. They submit to the authority of the teacher and textbook, viewing their role as simply to listen or read and remember. Research on secondary history students has shown that they place great confidence in an objective sounding textbook (Paxton, 1997; Wineburg, 1991); fail to think critically about the documents that they read (Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996); believe information found on bogus websites (Leu, et al., 2007); and are overconfident in their naïve understandings of the past (Wineburg, 2001). Secondary students uncritically accept (Leu, et al. 2007), and stubbornly cling to (Stahl et al., 1996) information that they read.
Traditional methods in history classrooms are partly to blame for the failure to help adolescents find healthy outlets for their natural skepticism. Textbooks continue to be the most commonly used resource in history classes, having been labeled by the American Textbook Council as the “de facto curriculum” (American Textbook Council, 1994-1995). Much research has shown that the objective, authoritative language of textbooks discourages students from doubting or even questioning the accuracy of its content (Paxton, 1997; Luke, de Castell, & Luke, 1989; Winburg 1991, 2001). Overexposed to textbooks, students begin to view all texts as “bearers of information” rather than pieces of evidence about the past (Stahl & Shanahan, 2004). Moreover, traditional lectures, activities, and assessments convince students that learning history is a matter of remembering information that has been transmitted to them.
There is a danger in failing to foster a healthy skepticism in secondary students. Participation as a consumer and voter in our democratic society demands individuals who can think critically about the ideas to which they are exposed. The Internet has made it easy to publish misinformation in an increasingly convincing manner. Advertisers stretch the truth about their products. Politicians give conflicting messages about themselves and their opponents. Adult readers, like historians, have the challenge of mining “truth from the quicksand of innuendo, half-truth, and falsehood that seeks to engulf us each day” (Wineburg, 2001, p. 83). The success of individuals and of American democracy as a whole hinges on the ability of individuals to think critically. A healthy skepticism is a key element of critical thinking.
Secondary history classrooms provide a suitable context for the development of healthy skepticism and critical thinking in adolescents. After all, the nature of historical inquiry requires these attributes from historians. Well-designed history lessons can help students engage in critical analysis. Moreover, teachers can discuss explicitly with their students the habits of mind that are essential in historical reasoning. This paper will describe an instructional method that has been used with success among middle school and high school students to help them think deeply and critically about historical controversies. This activity, labeled the evolving concept lesson plan, is designed to help students question their sources of information, avoid jumping to conclusions, and maintain an open but critical mind as their understanding of an event evolves. Further, it creates a record of their reasoning, which allows them to engage in metacognition by reflecting on the processes they have used as they have analyzed multiple historical texts.
Background
In order to understand the evolving concept lesson plan it is important to recognize a) the challenges faced by young people in reading multiple historical texts, b) what research suggests about teaching young people to effectively read multiple historical texts, and c) the role of metacognition in young people’s literacy development.
Challenges in Reading Multiple Historical Texts
In recent years researchers have expressed numerous concerns about the way secondary students read multiple historical documents. In a comparison of the way historians and students analyzed multiple historical texts Wineburg (1991) found that high school students did not consistently use the same heuristics that historians used to make sense of documents. In an analysis of think aloud protocols he found that historians repeatedly used three heuristics to understand what they read. First, before reading the document they looked at the source, and they attempted to understand the document with that source in mind. Second, they made direct comparisons between the multiple documents, looking for similarities and differences. Third, they attempted to place themselves in the historical, physical, and social context of the document’s creation. These three strategies, sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization, were not used by the students in Wineburg’s study. Instead, students tended to accept the information in the documents at face value. They viewed their role in the process as that of remembering the information. Instead of using source information to make sense of discrepancies between documents, they became frustrated by contradictions in the various accounts. They wondered how they could be expected to learn the facts if the facts changed from one text to the next. In their minds the textbook was a welcomed source because, as Derek put it, it was “just reporting the facts” (Winenurg, 2001, p. 68).
Although differences in the strategies used by students and historians are interesting and important, there appears to be some underlying epistemological differences between the two sets of readers that may be more significant. Wineburg uses an analogy of a courtroom to consider these differences (2001). He argues that the historians read like attorneys. In their minds they question texts seeking evidence that the source is reliable and the content verifiable by other witnesses. There rests with the text some burden of proof—the need to convince the historian that its story is plausible. High school students’ reading is more like jurors. They tend to become the passive recipients of information. They ask no questions, but merely collect the information from the witnesses. Thus, one of the biggest differences between historians and students is the way they approached a text. Historians come with a healthy skepticism, and it is up to the text, in connection with other texts, to convince them that it contains accurate information. Students approach each text with the idea that it contains the facts, and they accept those facts as they are written.
Other researchers have identified additional challenges faced by students. Stahl and his colleagues (1996) presented high school students with multiple historical texts and found that they noticed similarities between the texts but failed to notice differences. It appeared that students developed an understanding of an event as they read the first document. In subsequent documents they focused their attention on information that reinforced their original interpretation and failed to notice information that disagreed with their understanding. The implication was that students failed to maintain an open mind as they work with documents. Unlike historians, who recognized the tentative nature of all historical understandings, students quickly became committed to their first impressions, clinging to their original understandings of an event even in the face of contradictory evidence. These findings are similar to those of other studies. When Wineburg (1991) compared the way students and historians analyzed multiple historical documents, he found that students were more confident in their knowledge of an event than historians were, this after the students had engaged in a much less sophisticated analysis of the evidence than the historians.
Part of the reason for students’ inability to effectively analyze multiple historical documents may be that they have few opportunities to do so (Stahl & Shanahan, 2004). Nokes and Hansen (2007) observed 8 high school history teachers for 9 hours each recording the types of texts that students were exposed two. During the 72 hours of observation teachers provided only two activities where students were expected to compare or contrast multiple texts, in one case comparing two songs on immigration and in the other case contrasting two speeches about the United States’ involvement in World War I.
Another reason for students’ struggles to analyze multiple texts could be that they lack the cognitive ability to conduct such an analysis. Wineburg contended, “historical thinking, in its deepest forms, is neither a natural process nor something that springs automatically from psychological development. Its achievement … actually goes against the grain of how we ordinarily think…” (2001, p. 7). The reading of multiple texts requires young people to explore unfamiliar time periods with unfamiliar texts, often written above their reading level, using unfamiliar strategies. It may be foolish to expect such extraordinary thinking from young people, unless we provide considerable support and the instruction that fosters such thought.
Teaching Young People to Read Multiple Historical Texts
Support for students’ analysis of multiple historical texts comes in a number of formats, which researchers have shown help students read more critically. For example, Nokes, Dole, and Hacker (2007) found that high school students who were explicitly taught to use historians’ heuristics in their history classes began to use sourcing and corroboration but not contextualization. Additionally, computer software that was developed to help students practice sourcing has been shown to improve students’ ability to use source information (Britt & Aglinskas, 2002). In other research I-charts, graphic organizers that help students maintain a record of their analysis of multiple documents, were found to promote sourcing and to facilitate the direct comparison of information contained in the documents (Hoffman, 1992). Even young students have begun to demonstrate more sophisticated analysis of historical texts when they are taught to look for bias in writing (Ferretti, MacArthur, & Okolo, 2001).
One of the most successful studies was conducted by Hynd, Holschuh, and Hubbard (2004). Researchers theorized that individuals’ ability to think critically could be improved by being taught a systematic method of processing multiple texts that included the development of cross-textual links (corroboration), an analysis of the bias of the author (sourcing), contextualization, and by providing support for students’ use of these strategies in the form of a comparison/contrast chart. Students began to have a changed perspective on the nature of historical inquiry. Researchers found that when college students were given explicit instruction on what it meant to engage in historical reading and writing, combined with opportunities to reflect on their own historical thinking through questionnaires and interviews, students began to view texts as resources and their own historical understandings as tentative. During post-treatment interviews one commented that “I’m learning more that you can form your own interpretations…You have to make up your own mind” (p. 167). Researchers were uncertain whether students’ changed perceptions were a result of the treatment, engaging in the activity, or in the assessment, completing the questionnaires and interviews about the activity. They conclude that, “dialogue aimed at understanding what historians do, how they do it, and what their texts represent helped these students take responsibility for reading at deeper, more critical levels, as historians do. The role of reflection was a central element in this study” (p. 168). Taking the time to reflect on one’s thinking, as these students did, is called metacognition.
The Role of Metacognition
Researchers contend that one way to improve students’ general reading abilities is to help them engage in metacognition (Baker, 2002). When students engage in metacognition during reading they monitor their own comprehension of a text. When they engage in metacognition after reading they critically consider the effectiveness of the cognitive action they took during an activity. Hynd, Holschuh, and Hubbard (2004) believed that students’ reflection on their thought processes was a key to students’ improvements in historical analysis. Students who engage in metacognition often realize when there is a problem in their thinking and take measures to correct that problem. With practice over time metacognition becomes second nature for developing readers. But when metacognition is new students need instruction, time for reflection, and structure to support and direct their thinking. The evolving concept lesson plan provides support by creating a record of their thinking so that they can then go back and review their thought processes.
The Evolving Concept Lesson Plan
The evolving concept lesson plan is designed to help students trace their evolving understanding of an event through exposure to multiple, conflicting, historical accounts. The evolving concept lesson model is similar to a strategy developed by Manderino (2007), who asked students to synthesize information from multiple texts by writing progressively more complex summaries after each reading of a new text related to a single historical event. After reading the first text, students wrote a short summary. After a second text they wrote a slightly longer summary synthesizing information from both texts. The stages of reading a text and writing longer summaries was repeated through all of the available texts. The evolving concept lesson plan differs from Maderino’s approach in that in addition to writing summaries, students are asked to trace their evolving opinion of the event and to track their level of certainty in that opinion.
The activity starts with the teacher giving some background information on a controversial historical event. The teacher passes out a study guide that provides structure and support for the reading/analysis process (see Appendix A) and he or she explains how this form is to be completed. This study guide is used by students to keep a record of their study including the sources of the texts they read, a summary of each text, a record of agreements and disagreements between each text and those previously studied, a record of their opinion on the controversial topic, and their confidence level, which is updated after each text. Students are given the first text, and are asked to find the source and analyze it on the study guide. They then read the document and write a summary on the study guide. Students then record their opinion on the controversial topic and confidence level in that opinion. They record a brief explanation for their opinion and confidence level. They are then exposed to a new document and they repeat the process of recording the source, reading and summarizing the document, recording their opinion and confidence level. In addition, with each new text they record similarities and differences between it and those previously read. This same process is repeated through all of the sources that are available. After the last text has been read and analyzed, students record their final opinion and the confidence level. Each step in this process will be described in detail.
Choosing a Topic
The evolving concept lesson plan is designed to help students analyze controversial topics in history. Because one of the purposes of the activity is to help students recognize the tentative nature of historical understanding, the best topics allow classrooms of students to develop a mix of opinions. At the end of the activity students in a class should continue to disagree about the controversy.
Teachers should choose a topic that is appropriate for the students’ cognitive level. When the activity and the type of thinking that is expected is unfamiliar, or with students that are particularly young, teachers should frame controversies in simple terms. For example, if considering the Boston Massacre, a teacher might ask students to consider whether Captain Preston, leader of the British guard, should have been held criminally responsible for the deaths of the colonists. Or, in even simpler terms, was the massacre his fault? With students that are more mature or more experienced with the types of thinking that this activity requires, controversies can be framed in more sophisticated terms. For example, what percentage of the blame for the Boston Massacre should be placed on the different participants: the Americans present; revolutionary leaders, who may not have been present but whose fiery speech had stirred up the crowd; Captain Preston; British troops; King George III, and others who were involved directly or indirectly in the incident.
Introducing the Event
Students typically need some background information in order to comprehend the context and the controversy surrounding an historical event. The teacher does not share all that he or she knows about the event, but provides just the basic background information that is essential in understanding the controversy and the texts to which the students will be exposed. In providing this background information the teacher must be careful not to sway the students’ opinion in any way. Instead, the teacher must provide, in written or oral form, a brief overview of the facts that would not be disputed by experts who stand on either side of the controversy.
The Study Guide
Research suggests that when students are learning new skills teachers should provide temporary support, often referred to in the literature as “scaffolding” (Rosenshine & Meister, 1997). The study guide in the evolving concept lesson plan provides this support in several ways (see Appendix A). It reminds students that they should look at the source of a document and keep it in mind as they read. It reminds students to consider the bias of the source. In addition, trying to remember all of the facts of the various texts could overwhelm students’ limited cognitive resources, particularly when they are trying to engage in sophisticated critical thinking with multiple texts using unfamiliar strategies (Sinatra, Brown. & Reynolds, 2002). The study guide scaffolds student learning by providing a place for them to record a summary of the documents, thus freeing up working memory for other cognitive tasks.
In addition to providing scaffolding, the study guide provides a record of the students’ thoughts across the multiple texts. The study guide gives students multiple opportunities to express their opinion, thus signaling to them that it is appropriate and even expected that they will continually update their understanding based on the new evidence they encounter. In addition, by reviewing this record students can see how their ideas evolved as a result of this evidence. This element of the study guide promotes metacognition, providing a record that allows students to reflect on their thought processes across the texts. They have the opportunity to engage in a critique of their own thinking, particularly their level of confidence at each stage of the activity.
Choosing Texts
The selection of texts and the order that texts are presented makes a difference in the effectiveness of this activity. Stahl and his colleagues (1996) found that students’ understanding of an event was entrenched after reading the first text. Texts that followed, even those that contained conflicting information, served primarily to reinforce students’ original ideas. Students ignored conflicting information. A growing body of research, particularly in the field of science education shows that students stubbornly hold on to prior conceptions even in the face of powerful evidence that opposes their view (Chinn & Brewer, 1993).
It has been suggested that exposure to texts that are rhetorically compelling is more likely to change existing conceptions (Dole & Sinatra, 1998). It seems reasonable that exposure to rhetorically compelling texts would also create a conception that is resistant to future change, something that teachers want to avoid in the early stages of the evolving concept lesson. The implication is that if teachers want students to maintain an open mind they should use texts that are less compelling at first. These texts might come from sources with an obvious bias or those that give grossly exaggerated accounts—accounts that are strongly contested in other documents. Although students might not realize the flaws of these texts at first, when exposed to more reliable and balanced accounts they begin to question the reliability of the texts to which they were first exposed. As they question the validity of these first texts they begin to engage in the critical thinking that eventually may extend to texts in which the bias is less evident.
Because of the confusion students face in working with textbooks, it is not recommended that textbook accounts be used, particularly at the start of this activity. As described above, even highly skilled students have a difficult time thinking critically about textbook accounts. They place great trust in textbooks and are unlikely to demonstrate the desired open-mindedness when the textbook has given them what they perceive as a clear and unbiased understanding of the facts surrounding an event. If textbook accounts are to be included in the activity, they should be used after students have constructed their own understanding of the event. Then, if a textbook account contradicts their understanding they may question the accuracy of the textbook.
Working as a Class, as Small Groups, or Individuals
Vygotsky (1978) proposed that learning is a social endeavor and that individuals learn when they are supported while engaging in an activity that is slightly above their ability to do alone. The teacher and fellow students can provide necessary social support, or “scaffolding” for students as they experiment with unfamiliar ways of thinking and learning, such as those described in this paper. The metaphor of scaffolding implies temporary support that can later be removed. Thus, in the early stages of this activity it is suggested that the teacher work with the whole class and during the later stages of the activity students work in small groups before working individually. Social interaction allows the teacher and students to test hypotheses and critique each others’ ideas as well as to provide support as students develop new skills and habits of mind. The teacher can lead the class in the metacognition that is essential in improving skills.
At the start of the lesson, working with the entire class, the teacher introduces the topic and provides students with some background knowledge in oral or written form. The teacher passes out the study guide and makes sure that students understand what is being asked for in each section. The teacher should study the first document with the students modeling the analysis of the source, reading the document out loud with the students, helping students summarize the document, and thinking out loud as the document is analyzed in connection with the controversy that is being considered. The teacher should also model the completion of the first stage of the study guide, recording the source information and the summary, and then showing students how people with different opinions would record those opinions and their level of certainty. The teacher can lead the class in the analysis of other documents doing less modeling but allowing students to express their thought processes. When the teacher is confident that students understand the nature of the activity she can assign students in small groups to continue the analysis of documents. The teacher should encourage students to develop their own opinion, letting them know that it is appropriate and desired that they have different points of view on the controversy. If students have already engaged in the activity earlier in the year to study different topics the teacher might want them to work on their own rather than in small groups.
At the conclusion of the activity the teacher can call the class together for a debriefing discussion. He or she can lead the class in a discussion of the thought processes that students used. By doing so, students can learn effective strategies from each other, be exposed to alternative viewpoints, and critique one another’s thinking. For example, why did some students find some texts particularly compelling? How confident were they in their ideas early in the activity? Did this change as they were exposed to more texts? In this way, the class engages in metacognition: an analysis of their thinking across texts.
Students’ Evolving Conception and Confidence Level
One of the essential elements of the evolving concept lesson model is the opportunity for students to record their opinion on the controversial topic at regular intervals. The study guide provides a structure for them to do this. In addition, students are asked to record their level of confidence in this opinion. This is typically done by asking the students to place themselves on a continuum that ranges from “not sure at all” to “absolutely certain”.
After each exposure to a new text, students must rate their confidence in their understanding. The opportunity to see how their understanding and confidence level changes is intended to demonstrate for students that historical understanding is tentative and that exposure to new evidence can and should change one’s understanding of the past. In addition, the chance to rate one’s confidence level is intended to demonstrate for students that skepticism is a helpful attribute in historical analysis.
An Evolving Concept Lesson: The Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre is rich enough in controversy to make it a good topic for an evolving concept lesson. Teachers start by giving students some background information on the Boston Massacre. The teacher must be careful to use language that does not imply that anyone in particular was to blame for the incident (for an example, see the introduction in Appendix A). The teacher informs students that they are going to try to decide whether Captain Preston, commander of the British troops, should have been held responsible for the deaths of the colonists. Students are given the study guide and the procedures used to complete it are explained to them. Students then look at an engraving created by Paul Revere (1770a) showing a row of British troops firing into a group of blood-stained Americans as Captain Preston appears to give the command to fire. This resource has been selected because it represents patriot propaganda, and does not match most of the accounts of either the British, American patriot, or American loyalist eye-witnesses. The teacher asks the class to consider the source of the engraving and record on the study guide their thoughts about the source. In so doing questions should be asked such as who was Paul Revere? Which perspective does he represent? How did he know about the massacre? Was he present when it occurred? Then the teacher spends some time with the class making observations and inferences about the depiction shown in the engraving. What does it show happening? What does Captain Preston appear to be doing as the shots are fired? What are the colonists doing? What are the British soldiers doing? Once the engraving has been analyzed students can record a summary of what the painting shows, and then record their opinion on the question: Was Captain Preston responsible for the deaths of the Americans? Students mark on the spectrum how certain they are in that opinion, and write a short explanation of how they came to this conclusion.
A second document is then shown to the students: the poem that accompanied Revere’s engraving (1770b). This text, like the engraving, is passionate but contains very little information about the incident that it laments. With the teacher’s help students analyze the poem keeping in mind and recording on their study guide that Revere is again the source. After the poem has been analyzed students are given the chance to record their summary of it, as well as how it agrees and disagrees with the engraving. It should be noted that its agreement with the engraving can be attributed to the fact that they have the same source. Students are then given the chance to record their opinion on Preston’s guilt, the level of certainty in their opinion, and the reasons for their opinion. The teacher can expose students to a third document, Captain Preston’s account of the incident (The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1905), and repeat the process of considering the source, summarizing the content of the text, synthesizing the new evidence with that of the previous texts. Exposure to Preston’s account should raise questions about the accuracy of Revere’s version of the massacre. Preston gives a completely different story that appears to be more factual, although his bias can be perceived in a careful reading. This new source may or may not change students’ opinion but it should certainly cause them to have some doubts about his guilt, if they had been convinced of it earlier. The teacher leads the class in a discussion on why their understanding of the event has changed after this new text has been analyzed. If students are resistance to the change the teacher can use the new evidence to confront their former conception and promote a new view of the event.
When the teacher feels that students understand the process of analyzing the documents and completing the study guide he or she can assign students to consider several more texts in small groups or as individuals. Students continue to complete the study guide as they work through the remaining texts. These texts should include both American patriot, American loyalist, and British points of view. They could also include primary and secondary sources. After many texts have been reviewed the teacher can call the class back together for a debriefing on the activity. Students can submit a written verdict with the level of confidence that they have and a spectrum with all of the class members’ responses can be created on the chalkboard. Students can be asked which texts were most convincing and which were least accurate in their opinion. Most importantly, the teacher should discuss with them their thought processes. It should be shown that the best way to engage in this activity was to remain open minded at first and develop an opinion as more documents from more perspectives were considered. Even at the end of the activity there should be some doubt in the minds of the students concerning the controversy.
Examples of Student Materials
The evolving concept lesson plan described above was recently used with an adult high school class. An example of a student’s study guide is included in Appendix A and charts showing the class members’ evolving opinions are shown in Appendix B. Students in the class range in age from 16 to 42 and all had originally not finished high school with their graduating class and were returning to complete high school graduation requirements. In the weeks prior to this lesson the class had been exposed to primary source documents on several occasions and had been explicitly taught the strategy of sourcing. Evidence of this instruction, as well as a healthy skepticism is evident in many of the students’ study guides. For example when David (pseudonym, as are all other names) was asked why he was unsure about Preston’s guilt after exposure to Revere’s engraving he wrote, “Pictures don’t mean anything. [I] need to know more about this from other people’s point of view.” After exposure to a second document by Revere, David was skeptical about its content and his opinion was unchanged. He explained, “[I] still need to hear someone else’s opinion and story about what happened.” After analyzing the engraving another student, Sandra, wrote, “If we are basing if he is guilty or not just on this [picture], we are not even sure if the person who did it was really a witness.” In all, 21 of the 28 students in the class reported that they were “not sure at all” after exposure to the first document, and 19 of them continued to be “not sure at all” after the second document. This seems to indicate that most students were skeptical about Revere’s passionate condemnation of Preston and maintained an open mind about his guilt.
In contrast, after the third document, an eye-witness account, only 6 of the 28 students reported that they were “not sure at all”. Nineteen students leaned toward Preston’s guilt, with 6 absolutely certain or almost absolutely certain he was guilty and only 3 leaning toward not guilty. Students’ perceptions of Preston’s guilt continued to evolve across the 7 documents that they studied. For example, after reading Preston’s account of what happened many class members who had been fairly certain he was guilty were once again uncertain of his guilt. Several students exhibited signs of corroboration in their writing. For example, Sandra wrote, “Most of the witnesses—even Preston’s statement—stated that he had time to say ‘stop’ and control the situation. He was responsible for that control.” Noteworthy were students’ responses to the textbook account, to which they were exposed last. Fewer students changed their opinion after reading the textbook account than had changed their opinion after reading any other document. With few exceptions, those who had considered Preston guilty before reading the textbook continued to consider him guilty after reading that account. Similar consistency existed with those who considered him not guilty. This may indicate that the students did not consider the textbook very compelling, or that their opinions were becoming more firmly established by the end of the activity. At the end of class students were fairly evenly distributed with 9 leaning toward Preston’s guilt, 11 uncertain, and 8 leaning toward his innocence.
Not all students exhibited this same skepticism, sourcing, or corroboration during the activity. For example, after studying Revere’s engraving Diane, who was leaning toward Preston’s guilt wrote, “Captain Preston looks like he is commanding them to shoot, and is smiling.” Her explanation seems to indicate that she uncritically accepted the engraving as a representation of the event. She was similarly uncritical of the other documents that she read. And Diane was not alone. This seems to indicate that some students might need more scaffolding, more opportunities to reflect on their own thinking, and/or more direct instruction to accompany the evolving concept lesson plan.
Conclusion
In today’s Information Age it is important for individuals to think critically about the ideas to which they are exposed. Secondary history classrooms are an ideal location to teach these types of critical thinking skills. The evolving concept lesson plan is one approach to helping students begin to see the influence of perspective and bias on what a person says. It can help students develop important habits of independent thinking that will help them become better citizens of our democratic society. It will instill in them a healthy skepticism that will lead them to ask important questions before they accept information at face value.
Sources
American Textbook Council (1994-95). History textbooks: A standard and guide. New York: American Textbook Council.
Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York: Guilford.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128.
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 59-71.
Hoffman, J. V. (1992). Critical reading/thinking across the curriculum: Using I-Charts to support learning. Language Arts, 69(2), 121-127.
Hynd, C. Holschuh, J., & Hubbard, B. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students’ reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 2, 141-176.
Leu, D.J., Reinking, D., Carter, A., Castek, J., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A.,
Malloy, J., Robbins, K., Rogers, A., Zawilinski, L. (April 9, 2007). Defining online reading comprehension: Using think aloud verbal protocols to refine a preliminary model of Internet reading comprehension processes. Paper presented at The American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. Available from:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dcbjhrtq_10djqrhz.
Luke, C., de Castell, S. C., & Luke, A. (1989). Beyond criticism: The authority of the school textbook. In S. C. de Castell, A. Luke, & C. Luke (Eds.), Language, authority, and criticism (pp. 245-260). London: Falmer.
Manderino, M. (2007, November). Integrating the visual: Student strategies for multiple text synthesis. Paper presented at National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007) Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492-504.
Nokes, J. D., & Hansen, J. M. (2007, June). Rethinking literacy in the social studies curriculum? Paper presented at the Secondary Literacy across the Content Conference, Lehi, UT.
Paxton, R. J. (1997). “Someone with like a life wrote it”: The effects of a visible author on high school history students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 235-250.
Revere, P. (1770a). The Bloody Massacre Perpetrated in King Street. [engraving]. In
http://www.paulauger.com/images/BostonMassacre1Lg.jpg. Retrieved October 2, 2008.
Revere, P. (1770b). The Bloody Massacre Perpetrated in King Street. [engraving]. In
http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/cartoon/revere.html on October 2, 2008
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in reading. In S. A. Stahl & D. A. Hayes (Eds.), Instructional models in reading (pp. 85-108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sinatra, G.M., Brown, K. J., & Reynolds, R. E. (2002). Implications of cognitive resource allocation for comprehension strategies instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley, (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 62-76). New York: Guilford.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
Stahl, S. A., & Shanahan, C. H. (2004). Learning to think like a historian: Disciplinary knowledge through critical analysis of multiple documents. In T. L. Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 94-115). New York: Guilford.
The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, (1905). Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Vol. VII. Boston: The Colonial Society of Massachusetts
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519.
Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert /expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346.
Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Appendix A: An Example of a Student’s Completed Evolving Concept Study Guide
Appendix B: An Example of a Class’ Evolving Concepts
|
