Scaffolding Historical Contextualization Through Classroom Discussions

• In Event: Roundtable Session 7
  In Roundtable Session: A Janus Head or the Same Side of the Medallion? Innovating and Improving Historical Reasoning and Understanding

Abstract

Scholars have indicated that constructing a historical context is important for historical thinking, but difficult for students (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2012; Van Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008; Wineburg, 2001, 2007). In a design-based research study, two learning assignments, addressing this difficulty, were developed, based on three major design principles: (1) challenging students’ historical knowledge by creating cognitive incongruity; (2) stimulating substantiated considerations; and (3) scaffolding student learning (Havekes, Coppen, Luttenberg, & Van Boxtel, 2012). To guide the construction of a historical context by the students the assignment consisted of two phases: pairs of students working on several questions and a classroom discussion to construct a more sophisticated historical context. This study will focus on the classroom discussion and the role of the teacher. The research question is: How do teacher and students interact to guide students reasoning during a classroom discussion on historical contextualisation?
Five teachers, in five schools participated and seven classroom discussions were analysed (from two teachers we analysed two classroom discussion). In order to reflect on the role of the teacher, we first analysed the quality of the classroom discussion. We used the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Insights on collaborative thinking (Mercer & Littleton, 2007), transformation of understanding (Nystrand, 1997) and the relations between content, patterns and purpose of the talk (Scott, Mortimer, & Aguiar, 2006) provided synthesising concepts to construct a framework for the analysis of the classroom discussion.
This led to an analysing framework, in which three components were integrated: a) the collaboration between teacher and students; b) the substantive component (perspectives taken) of the classroom discussion; and c) the learning activity (argumentation). Combining these components, led to four characterisations of the classroom discussion: 1) Transmissive Talk: One perspective is discussed, in which one student or the teacher is leading. Arguments for alternative perspectives are infrequently discussed. 2) Cumulative Talk: One perspective is discussed together (as equals). Arguments for alternative perspectives are infrequently discussed. 3) Disputational Talk: Several perspectives are discussed. Students bring forward their perspectives and focus on their own argument. 4) Transformational Talk: Students and teacher discuss several perspectives together. Perspectives and arguments are weighed together and converge to a new/better conclusion.
As we are still analysing the data, we can only give some preliminary results. Data suggest that to enhance historical contextualisation, teachers need to alternate constantly between the different types of talk during a classroom discussion. Data also suggest that teachers find this difficult, as they tend to use disputational talk at the start of the classroom discussion (to investigate the possible perspectives), then mainly use cumulative talk during the discussion and transmissive talk to end the discussion.

Authors

• Harry Havekes, Radboud Graduate School of Education Nijmegen

• Johan Luttenberg, Radboud University Nijmegen

• Peter-Arno Coppen, Radboud University Nijmegen

• Carla Van Boxtel, University of Amsterdam