Design Process for History Interventions

• In Event: Reading for Understanding: Initial Studies of Students and Teachers Using Multiple Sources in Content Areas

Abstract

Purpose: This poster describes the design process that guided the creation of two units of study used for classroom interventions aimed at teaching students how to process historical texts as arguments for purposes of constructing historical explanations.

Perspectives: Historical inquiry requires the evaluation of multiple sources. Seixas (1993) argues for a constructivist approach where students need to identify events of historical significance, add, revise, or refine their understandings of the past, be able to recognize agency, possess historical empathy, and make moral judgments about the past. To engage in this type of thinking, proficiency in synthesizing information across multiple sources that provide evidence of the past is required. Researchers have advocated the teaching of historical thinking skills to be able to interpret those sources (e.g. Bain, 2006; Lee, 2005; Monte-Sano, 2008; Seixas, 1993; VanSledright, 2002).

Methods: To develop units for instruction that made use of multiple historical sources to generate historical arguments, a team of literacy researchers and history teachers used a set of core constructs for history inquiry that Project READI researchers had derived from previous research and theory along with results from a set of Project READI history “baseline” studies using multiple sources to construct an historical explanation. The team also analyzed middle and high school course offerings, syllabi, and standards to identify topics and create a set of overarching themes for each unit to be designed. Two units of study for grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12 and the design process that guided them are the data sources.

Results of the Design Process: The learning objectives for these units reflect the selection of particular core constructs as focal. For epistemology, the focus was history as interpretive, with claims and evidence from historical sources guiding that interpretation. This focus was based on baseline data indicating that students were not using evidence from the texts when responding to an argument prompt. Historical thinking heuristics - sourcing, contextualization, and corroboration (Wineburg, 1991) – were also part of the learning objectives. For historical frameworks, emphasis was placed on economic, political, chronological, and conflict-oriented aspects of history, frameworks that appeared repeatedly in the analyses of course offerings, syllabi, and standards. Finally, the team created a set of decision rules for text selection that included availability, relevance, interest, depth and breadth. Texts needed to offer significant information, provide several perspectives, and be challenging, yet accessible.

The set of texts was analyzed to be sure that the information needed to construct a complete historical explanation was present across the set and that students would need to integrate across texts to construct an explanation. Text complexity was examined from qualitative and quantitative perspectives, including issues of reader, task, and contextual factors as outlined by the Common Core Standards (CCSSO, 2010).

Significance: The design process provides a blueprint for unit construction that will guide additional unit designs. Importantly, the process involved multiple perspectives and expertise areas (e.g., learning, history, teaching). The units themselves provide examples of a systematic approach to design.

Authors

• Gina Hale, WestEd

• Michael Manderino, Northern Illinois University

• Gayle Cribb, WestEd

• Diane V. Puklin, University of Chicago