Scholars often define historical reasoning as constructing defensible interpretations of past events. Drawing on critical theory, this article suggests that it also entails consciously framing one's topic of inquiry. The article examines an instructional unit that aimed to foster this expanded view of historiography. Forty students, ages 14–15, wrote histories of the Vietnam War from 12 primary accounts and compared their depictions to that of their textbook. After participating in the unit, students found the textbook factually accurate yet biased in its pattern of emphasis and omission, a conclusion that aligned with the unit's goal of helping them distinguish empirical integrity from interpretive frame. However, whereas critical theorists view all scholarship as partially subjective, the students sought to achieve objectivity by including “both sides” in their histories. The study suggests that educators should highlight the numerous dilemmas historians face, from framing their topic to selecting and analyzing evidence.
Notes
Other intervention studies include: Foster and Yeager (Citation1999); Ferretti, MacArthur, and Okolo (Citation2001); Britt and Aglinskas (Citation2002); Hynd, Holschuh, and Hubbard (Citation2004); Kohlmeier (Citation2006); Saye and Brush (Citation2007); and van Boxtel and van Drie (Citation2012). Some of this work touches on elements of critical historical reasoning, such as identifying historians’ interpretive frames and biases. See also Trofanenko (Citation2008), who examined how three students understood the social functions served by competing narratives of the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804–1806.
The picture cards that students selected from in Barton and Levstik's (1998) study used wording that may have swayed students to endorse a narrative of progress. Epstein's work (Citation1998, Citation2000) avoids this problem, thus lending credence to their findings (at least for White students). In a national survey, however, Rosenzweig (Citation2000) found that more than four fifths of White adult respondents “described change for the worse” (p. 270) when depicting American history, and Wineburg and Monte-Sano (Citation2008) found in a different survey that when disallowed from choosing presidents, respondents of all races listed African Americans as the most “famous” Americans.
Other scholars have examined how students interpret documents pertaining to the Vietnam War (Hynd et al., Citation2004; Stahl et al., Citation1996), but none explored how students respond to the dilemma of how to frame the conflict.
Here and throughout, pseudonyms are used to protect participants’ anonymity.
We also distributed two optional sources: a description of Vietnam's physical and cultural landscape for U.S. army recruits (Young et al., Citation2002), and John Kerry's antiwar testimony to the U.S. Senate on April 22, 1971 (Cantu & Cantu, Citation2003). Only a few students chose to analyze these documents or include them in their histories.
Table 2 Primary Documents Used in the Vietnam Unit
For instructional resources that advocate strategies similar to ours, see: Menkart, Murray, and View (Citation2004); Kohl (Citation2005); Wineburg (Citation2007); Bigelow (Citation2008); and Martin (Citation2008). See also Kobrin (Citation1992) for a description of a comparable curriculum in action.
During the interviews, I sometimes prompted students to compare multiple documents. Their use of corroboration in these instances is not reported, as the impetus came from me and not the student.
Contextualization has been measured differently by different authors. Nokes et al. (Citation2007), for instance, apply a narrower definition than Monte-Sano (Citation2010) does. It also tends to overlap with certain types of sourcing, which helps explain our low level of interrater agreement for contextualization.
The fact that students corroborated more frequently with the textbook than with the primary sources (see ) could stem from the differing prompts in each case. I asked them to assess the primary sources’ credibility (Appendix 1, Questions 1–3), whereas I asked them to compare the textbook chapter to the student histories (). In addition, they analyzed the primary sources orally but the textbook in writing. For reasons such as these, I deemed it inappropriate to conduct a statistical comparison of heuristic use in the two situations.
Stahl et al. (1996) consulted students’ written notes, where they might be less likely to use heuristics than in oral interviews. Wineburg's (1991a) think-aloud protocol is more congruent with the approach I used.
Students’ positivism might also have stemmed from the way one of the interview questions was worded (see Appendix 1, Question 5). Their reluctance to allow their “personal stance on the war” to affect what they wrote is shared by many historians. A better example of how a narrative's frame could inform its points of emphasis might have yielded a different student response.
Foster, S.J., & Yeager, E.A. (1999). “You've got to put together the pieces”: English 12-year-olds encounter and learn from historical evidence. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(4), 286–317.
Hynd, C.R., Holschuh, J.P., & Hubbard, B.P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students' reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 141–176.
Kohlmeier, J. (2006). “Couldn't she just leave?”: The relationship between consistently using class discussions and the development of historical empathy in a 9th grade world history course. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(1), 34–57.
Saye, J.W., & Brush, T. (2007). Using technology-enhanced learning environments to support problem-based historical inquiry in secondary school classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 196–230.
van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2012). “That's in the time of the Romans!” Knowledge and strategies students use to contextualize historical images and documents. Cognition and Instruction, 30(2), 113–145.
Trofanenko, B.M. (2008). More than a single best narrative: Collective history and the transformation of historical consciousness. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(5), 579–603.
Barton, K.C., & Levstik, L.S. (1998). “It wasn't a good part of history”: National identity and students' explanations of historical significance. Teachers College Record, 90(3), 478–513.
Levstik, L.S. (1998). Early adolescents' understanding of the historical significance of women's rights. International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 19–34.
Levstik, L.S. (2000). Articulating the silences: Teachers' and adolescents' conceptions of historical significance. In P.N. Stearns, P.C. Seixas, & S.S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 284–305). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Epstein, T. (1998). Deconstructing differences in African-American and European-American adolescents' perspectives on U.S. history. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(4), 397–423.
Epstein, T.Adolescents' perspectives on racial diversity in U.S. history: Case studies from an urban classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 185–214.
Yeager, E.A., Foster, S.J., & Greer, J. (2002). How eighth graders in England and the United States view historical significance. Elementary School Journal, 103(2), 199–219.
Barton, K.C. (2005a). “Best not to forget them”: Secondary students' judgments of historical significance in Northern Ireland. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(1), 9–44.
Terzian, S.G., & Yeager, E.A. (2007). “That's when we became a nation”: Urban Latino adolescents and the designation of historical significance. Urban Education, 42(1), 52–81.
Cercadillo, L. (2001). Significance in history: Students' ideas in England and Spain. In A. Dickinson, P. Gordon & P. Lee (Eds.), International review of history education, Vol. 3: Raising standards in history education (pp. 116–145). London, UK: Woburn.
Epstein, T. (1998). Deconstructing differences in African-American and European-American adolescents' perspectives on U.S. history. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(4), 397–423.
Epstein, T.Adolescents' perspectives on racial diversity in U.S. history: Case studies from an urban classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 185–214.
Rosenzweig, R. (2000). How Americans use and think about the past: Implications from a national survey for the teaching of history. In P.N. Stearns, P.C. Seixas, & S.S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 262–283). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Hynd, C.R., Holschuh, J.P., & Hubbard, B.P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students' reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 141–176.
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(4), 430–456.
Cantu, D.A., & Cantu, S. (2003). The Vietnam War: A national dilemma—A unit of study for grades 10–12. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for History in the Schools.
Menkart, D., Murray, A.D., & View, J. (2004). Putting the movement back into civil rights teaching: A resource guide for K–12 classrooms. Washington, DC: Teaching for Change.
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(3), 492–504.
Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents' writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539–568.