TEACHING FOR HISTORICAL

LITERACY

Teaching for Historical Literacy combines the elements of historical literacy into a
coherent instructional framework for teachers. It identifies the role of historical
literacy, analyzes its importance in the evolving educational landscape, and details
the action steps necessary for teachers to implement its principles throughout a
unit. These steps are drawn from the reflections of real teachers, grounded in
educational research, and consistent with the Common Core State Standards.
The instructional arc formed by authors Matthew T. Downey and Kelly A. Long
takes teachers from start to finish, from managing the prior learning of students to
developing their metacognition and creating synthesis at the end of a unit of
study. It includes introducing topics by creating a conceptual overview, helping
students collect and analyze evidence, and engaging students in multiple kinds of
learning, including factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive. This book
is a must-have resource for teachers and students of teaching interested in
improving their instructional skills, building historical literacy, and being at the
forefront of the evolving field of history education.

Matthew T. Downey is Emeritus Professor of History and former Director of

the Hewit Institute for History and Social Science Education at the University of
Northern Colorado.

Kelly A. Long is an Associate Professor of History and Associate Dean in the

College of Liberal Arts at Colorado State University.
This page intentionally left blank
TEACHING FOR
HISTORICAL LITERACY
Building Knowledge in the History
Classroom

Matthew T. Downey and Kelly A. Long

First published 2016
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
The right of Matthew T. Downey and Kelly A. Long to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without
intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Downey, Matthew T.
Teaching for historical literacy: building knowledge in the history classroom
/ by Matthew T. Downey and Kelly A. Long.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-138-85957-9 (hardback) -- ISBN 978-1-138-85958-6 (pbk.)
-- ISBN 978-1-315-71711-1 (e-book) 1. History--Study and teaching--
United States. I. Long, Kelly A., 1957- II. Title.
D16.3.D69 2015
907.1’073--dc23
2015005060
ISBN: 978-1-138-85957-9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-85958-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-71711-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby
 For our students
from whom we have learned so much
over so many years.
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ix
Acknowledgments xi

PART I
Historical Literacy 1

1 Historical Literacy 3

2 Historical Thinking 17

PART II
Historical Inquiry and Instructional Design 27

3 History as Inquiry 29

4 Historical Knowledge 39

5 Plan Instruction 55

PART III
Getting Learning Underway 73

6 Activate Prior Learning 75

viii Contents

7 Preview the Learning to Come 92

PART IV
Building Historical Knowledge 107

8 Collect Evidence 109

9 Analyze and Evaluate 125

10 Make Connections 139

11 Synthesize 154

PART V
Applying the Learning 167

12 Apply Historical Knowledge 169

Index 181
ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures
2.1 History’s Disciplinary Concepts 18
2.2 History’s Multifocal Disciplinary Lens 24
4.1 Classroom Historical Inquiry Concept Web 40
4.2 Varieties of Knowledge 42
5.1 Drivetrain Sequence 57
5.2 Some Big Ideas for American History 60
5.3 Some Big Questions 62
5.4 Reading Comprehension Strategies Chart 68
5.5 Teaching for Historical Literacy 69
5.6 Arc of Instruction 70
6.1 Teaching for Historical Literacy: Getting Learning Underway 74
6.2 K-R-A-W-L Chart 84
6.3 A Basic or Standard Anticipation Guide 85
6.4 Extended Anticipation Guide 87
6.5 Colonial America Confirming Anticipation Guide 89
7.1 Industrial Age Structured Overview 94
7.2 Civil War Structured Overview 95
7.3 Bison Hunters Concept Web 96
7.4 A Student Created Communism Concept Map 97
7.5 Concept Definition Chart 103
8.1 Teaching for Historical Literacy: Building Knowledge 108
8.2 Cornell Notes Modification 112
8.3 Study Guide Questions 117
x Illustrations

10.1 The Language of Causation 151

12.1 Teaching for Historical Literacy: Applying Historical Knowledge 168

Tables
3.1 Essential Historical Questions 32
5.1 Formative Assessment Matrix 66
6.1 Basic K-W-L Chart 77
6.2 B-K-W-L-Q Organizer 79
7.1 Kinds of Graphic Overviews 93
9.1 Ancient Civilizations Comparison Chart 127
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are indebted to many people who have contributed to our thinking and
research during the years that have led to the publication of this book.
After working with a pilot group of teachers selected from a Teaching
American History grant in which we had been involved, we formed the first
Historical Literacy Partnership (HLP) in 2006. The project out of which this
book has grown began as a quest for a different kind of in-service teacher
education model than we had experienced in the past. The professional
development model that took shape was a partnership with teachers that focused
on common problems in history teaching. It brought small groups of teachers
together for extended periods of time. We have worked with small cohorts of
teachers from five school districts over periods lasting from eighteen months to
three years.
The Historical Literacy Partnership was an expanding collaborative. The
Historical Literacy Partnership incorporated after-school seminars, week-long
curriculum-development institutes during the summer, and conversations in
which we shared experiences about implementing the changes that we designed
together. We read and discussed professional articles about history teaching. In
our classrooms we applied the theory and research explored during the seminars
by designing units, lessons, and activities. Collectively the partners critiqued the
activities for historical authenticity, debriefed each other’s classroom experiences,
and discussed unforeseen or unresolved problems of teaching and learning. We
consulted with the HLP teachers as they developed classroom units and we
observed many of them in their classrooms. Several of our partners presented
their HLP-related work at professional conferences. Eventually, we discussed the
drafts of this manuscript extensively with these partners and incorporated their
xii Acknowledgments

experiences, along with our own, into the book. They played a significant role
in shaping this final outcome of our work together.
Our partners have influenced our thinking, challenged our assumptions,
helped us to maintain our focus, and contributed in other meaningful ways.
While we have included examples of several partners’ work in the pages of this
book, we are indebted to all of them. We identify them in the book followed by
the initials HLP to indicate their participation in the Partnership. The tradition in
scholarly literature is to identify authors by their last names. Because these people
are our friends, we frequently refer to them by first name. This may help readers
distinguish between our partners’ work and examples drawn from the literature.
We are pleased to introduce them here as the colleagues and friends we have
come to know. They are Kortney Arrington, Carin Barrett, Karen Beitler, Nita
Bitner, Tracy Brady, Russ Brown, Deann Bucher, Andrew Bushe, Mandy Byrd,
Jody Connelly, Josh Cox, Lori Davis, David Farrell, Trudy Gesin, Mack Holly,
Aaron Jackson, Marty Jaskin, Christopher Kline, Christine Matthie, Liz Melahn,
Michelle Pearson, Ann Putsche, Shelley Reffner, Cory Reinking, Dan Rypma,
Mark Sass, Arleen Schilling, Elaine Kim Spadling, Tom Sweeney, Brooke
Tomalchof, Mike Weber, Gabrielle Wymore, and John Valdez. All are teachers
from Colorado who teach or taught in Denver, suburban Denver, Loveland, Fort
Collins, and Boulder-area schools.
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jaime Donahue, the project’s
research assistant. We set out to do a search in the published literature for
innovative teaching ideas and strategies. We had no idea what a substantial task
this would turn out to be. As will be obvious from even a quick perusal of the
Reference sections, the scholarship of history teaching and learning is an
international and interdisciplinary endeavor. The substantial and growing body of
research completed since the 1990s is one of the most promising changes in
history education. The skills of a capable research assistant can make undertaking
a project of this type a most rewarding experience. To work with an assistant
who responded promptly, did meticulous work, and rose to this challenge with a
caring, cheerful presence made this work more than simply an intellectual
endeavor, but a rewarding experience of friendship as well. Jaime provided us
with a great deal more than just a comprehensive survey of this research.
We also are grateful to administrators and their staffs at all levels in each of the
districts with which we worked for their support and cooperation. In particular,
we are appreciative of the assistance offered by key figures in the area of social
studies by leaders in three districts: Margo Walsh and Donna O’Brien, Adams 12
Five Star Schools; Diane Lauer, Thompson School District; and Andrea Delorey,
Poudre School District. Without their help in welcoming this project in their
districts and sending capable classroom teachers our way, this project would not
have been possible. We are most appreciative of the guidance and editorial
judgment of Catherine Bernard and Trevor Gori at Routledge.
 Acknowledgments xiii

We are grateful also to Colorado State University and the University of

Northern Colorado, at which we have been privileged to teach, for the
institutional support and encouragement of the research connected with this
book. That support included the invaluable service of Valerie Ashton,
Administrative Assistant in the UNC Social Science Program, which was
consistently way above and far beyond the call of duty. We also benefitted from
the expertise of Bette Rathe, research librarian at UNC’s James A. Michener
Library. This project also could not have been possible without funding from
UNC’s Hewit Institute for History and Social Science Education, which is
endowed by a generous gift from the estate of William E. Hewit.
This page intentionally left blank
PART I

Historical Literacy
This page intentionally left blank
1
HISTORICAL LITERACY

History teaching in the schools is not what it used to be. School reform in recent
years has altered the routine of classroom teachers everywhere. They face state-
imposed curriculum changes, new assessment or testing requirements, and
demanding procedures for teacher evaluation. Others spend more time
implementing new standards such as the Common Core, mastering the latest
classroom technology, and coping with students’ second-language learning issues.
While such changes attract the most attention, others are transforming history
teaching in more fundamental ways. This book is about some of the undercurrents
of change in history teaching and learning often obscured by the storms that roil
the surface. They are likely to have a more enduring impact on history education
than those that seem more newsworthy and controversial today.
A major rethinking of how best to teach history in schools has been underway
for at least two decades. In one sense, it represents the collective response of
history teachers and teacher educators to Peter Seixas’ (1996) call for a “new
pedagogy for history,” which he hoped “might promote students’ ability to
develop meaningful, critical historical understanding” (p. 777). More practically
speaking, it is the result of individual teachers and scholars’ efforts to align history
teaching with their own changing assumptions about how students learn and
how best to engage students in meaningful learning.
In the not too distant past, the history curriculum in place virtually everywhere
was content-driven and focused on teaching and learning factual information. To
be sure, many, if not most, history classrooms are still teacher centered and
textbook focused, with students spending much of their time as passive listeners
who occasionally participate in recitation-like discussions. But these classrooms
do not represent, as they once did, a nearly uniform lay of the land in history
education. New models for history teaching have emerged that look distinctly
4 Historical Literacy

different from those of the past and that offer teachers clear alternatives to the
“traditional” instruction described above. Teachers are relying less on textbooks
and more on primary sources, emphasizing historical thinking over rote learning,
and integrating literacy instruction.
While the changes underway promote the meaningful, critical historical
understanding that Seixas called for, they do not yet add up to a coherent
pedagogy. They do not yet represent a paradigm shift for history education. It
may even be that paradigm shifts or tipping points are not useful metaphors for
change in history education, especially given the way public education is organized
in the United States. Despite national standards and reform agendas, most decisions
about what to teach and how to do it are made at the state department of education
and local school district levels. Change tends to take place in piecemeal fashion.
A broad consensus about how best to teach history may be even less likely, as
history in the United States has no single, powerful voice to promote and guide
curricular or pedagogical change. Instead, history has two professional associations
that promote competing standards and curricular guidelines, the National Council
for the Social Studies and the National Council for History Education. Change in
history classrooms tends to happen one teacher or district or, at most, one state at
a time. As we all know, some teachers in a school district or building embrace
change while others resist. Even individuals adopt specific reform measures in
piecemeal fashion, accepting one while hesitating about another. While one
should be cautious about making claims for paradigm shifts, that significant
pedagogical changes are underway is clearly evident.
The changes that we describe and the positions we advocate in the following
chapters have implications beyond what teachers and students do in history
classrooms. The newly emerging pedagogy is also prompting a rethinking of the
purpose or rationale for history education. The two are intimately related. A
pedagogy that once emphasized committing names, dates, and events to memory,
especially key developments in national history, had its purpose. In schools in the
United States, it promoted a shared body of information about the alleged manifest
destiny of Anglo-Americans at home and abroad. It was a pedagogy well designed
to acculturate young people into an expanding industrial society, Americanize
immigrants, and provide the glue thought to be needed to hold a heterogeneous
society together. A pedagogy that promotes “meaningful, critical historical
understanding” is hardly compatible with that approach. Teaching history for
citizenship education has more or less taken its place, at least among social studies
educators, but is unnecessarily restrictive. While critical historical thinking and
understanding surely are civic assets, they have implications for many other aspects
of life as well. The parameters for a more encompassing rationale for history
education are only beginning to take shape, to which we will return later. First,
we must more closely examine the shifting landscape of history education.
At least the broad outlines of a new pedagogy of history education are
discernible. Teachers have shifted their attention from factual knowledge to be
 Historical Literacy 5

regurgitated on tests to a different order of learning outcomes. They emphasize

conceptual learning and thinking grounded in the discipline of history. They are
more likely to involve students in authentic historical investigations, engage them
in analyzing primary sources, and help them think critically about historical
accounts. They are more concerned about disciplinary literacy or whether
students can read for understanding, construct documents-based accounts and
understand the interpretative nature of history. The new pedagogy also represents
history’s piecemeal implementation of the “thinking curriculum” advocated by
Lauren B. Resnick and Leopold E. Klopfer (1989). The teachers pursuing it want
to know whether their students can think historically, develop conceptual
understandings about what happened in the past, and connect what happened to
their own lives today. It is not that factual knowledge is unimportant, but that
without the context of conceptual understanding such knowledge is meaningless,
useless, and fleeting.
Yet, what innovative teachers are doing is not a clean break from the past.
Their teaching retains elements of continuity with what came before, as changes
invariably do. In the United States, even innovative teachers continue to
implement a standard curriculum consisting of national and world history. More
ethnic, women’s, and social history have been added over the years, but the
traditional curricular framework remains largely in place. That is true elsewhere
as well. The history curriculum in Britain, where bold experiments were
underway in the 1970s, has returned to an emphasis on national history (National
Curriculum for England, 1999, 2007). Jesus Dominguez and Ignacio Pozo (1998)
have described generally what is happening as “a balanced approach between
traditional content, i.e., historians’ accounts of past facts and events, and
procedures or methods concerned both with the interpretation of evidence and
the understanding and explanation of past actions and events.” While the resulting
curriculum values historical knowledge, it also recognizes that students “need to
acquire some familiarity with the skills and methods required to construct that
knowledge” (p. 344). The new approach strikes a balance between history
content and historical thinking, factual knowledge, and conceptual understanding.

The Cognitive Revolution

The changes taking place in history classrooms are not unique to history instruction.
They are history educators’ response to the earlier shift from behaviorist to
cognitivist modes of thinking within academic psychology that Howard Gardner
(1985) called the Cognitive Revolution. The new cognitivist view of learning
assumed that knowledge is not transmitted intact from teacher or text to learner,
but is something the learner must actively construct. The new emphasis on
cognitive processes has had far-ranging implications for teaching and learning in
the schools, first in mathematics, science, and reading instruction (Royer, 2005),
and later in history (Wineburg, 2000). Among the Cognitive Revolution’s major
6 Historical Literacy

contributions to content area instruction is the idea that academic knowledge and
thinking are discipline specific. “No longer are the disciplines perceived as shells
that encase domain-general processes,” Sam Wineburg and Pamela Grossman
(2001) note. “Rather, there is an awareness that mathematics, biology, history,
physics, and the other subjects of the school curriculum are distinctive ways of
thinking and talking” (p. 480). Gardner (1999) described disciplines as the different
lenses through which biologists, mathematicians, or historians view and make
sense of the world. Consequently, for students to be knowledgeable in any subject
area, they must know how those who work in that area think as well as understand
the subject-matter content that is the product of that thinking. The challenge is to
introduce students to disciplined ways of thinking without expecting them to
become junior biologists, mathematicians, or historians. “Our goal,” Gardner
continued, “should not be to telescope graduate training but rather to give students
access to the ‘intellectual heart’ or ‘experiential soul’ of a discipline. Education
succeeds if it furnishes students with a sense of how the world appears to individuals
sporting quite different kinds of glasses” (p. 157). We need to outfit students with
these disciplinary lenses, he concluded, to give them a better view of the world in
which they live.

Historical Literacy
The pedagogical changes that are the focus of this book have the potential to help
students see themselves and the world in which they live more clearly. For them
to do so, we must help them become historically literate. What does that mean?
Although the term “historical literacy” has been used in history education circles
for at least three decades, its meaning has shifted over time. It was the title of an
earlier book, Historical Literacy: The Case for History in American Education (1989),
edited by Paul Gagnon and the Bradley Commission. Neither the editor nor his
contributors bothered to define the term, likely assuming that readers would
recognize its allusion to the title of E. D. Hirsch’s Cultural Literacy (1987), a then
best-seller that emphasized core knowledge that all American citizens should
know. While the term was briefly associated with the notion of core historical
knowledge (Ahonen, 2005; Partington, 1994; Zinsser, 1995), it soon lost that
ideologically tinted connotation.
In time, the term “historical literacy” was adopted and redefined by history
education reformers. It has largely come to represent a set of student competencies
and instructional outcomes associated with the pedagogy that we briefly outlined
above. Tony Taylor (2003) used it as the covering term for a variety of learning
outcomes, including knowledge of historical concepts, knowing how to connect
historical learning to life outside the school, and the ability to engage effectively in
public debate. For Jeffrey Nokes (2013), historical literacies are the strategies and
skills that historians use to construct meaning from texts and other sources. Others
have used the term to emphasize conceptual historical knowledge as well as an
 Historical Literacy 7

understanding of the discipline of history (Lee, 2007; Mandell & Malone, 2008;
Metzger, 2007; Rodrigo, 1994). To the above outcomes, Peter Lee (2011) has
added a set of dispositions that includes respect for evidence, willingness to follow
where it leads despite one’s preconceptions, and respecting people in the past as
human beings. The term also is used to define the larger goals of history education
(Lee, 2011; Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995). History educators, Lee (2011) noted,
need “a sense of what history education should add up to. We need a concept of
historical literacy to enable us to tell others, and perhaps more importantly to remind
ourselves, what is central to history education” (p. 64). It is primarily in this goals-
oriented sense that we use the term in the title of this book and in the chapters that
follow. The goals of historical literacy merit a brief introduction here, although we
will revisit them periodically throughout the book.
In the first place, to be historically literate, a person must be knowledgeable
about the past. Our American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “literate” as
“knowledgeable, educated” (adjective) and being “a well-informed, educated
person” (noun), as well as being able to read and write. While factual content has
often assumed the guise of historical knowledge, it is only the raw material from
which historical understanding is constructed. Historical knowledge is what
people make of those facts. It also is, Perfetti, Britt, and Georgi (1995) argue,
more than learning stories about the past. Knowing a narrative is merely the
minimum standard for judging whether a student is competent in history. They
stress that, “Beyond this minimum, we look to a higher standard—historical
literacy” (p. 4). In other words, knowledge that qualifies a person as historically
literate is coherent, conceptual, and meaningful knowledge about the past that is
grounded in the critical use of evidence. “We assume that historical literacy … is
a reasonable goal for high-school students, and certainly for college students” (p.
5). It also is a reasonable goal for elementary students, when outcomes are adjusted
to the appropriate age level.
The goal of historical literacy includes helping students become literate about
the discipline as well as the subject matter of history. Students should understand
at increasingly more sophisticated levels that historical knowledge is not a body
of facts waiting to be memorized. It consists of understandings about the past that
they must construct from various sources of information. A historically literate
person who encounters a primary source understands that the document is a
fragment from the past. It may or may not mean that the source is useful evidence
in making an argument about what happened and why. It does mean that
historical learning is not a passive process. Historical literacy requires an active
engagement with facts, the goal being a conceptual understanding about the past
and about how the past is related to the present. To build historical knowledge,
students must also know what historical texts are, and how and why they are
created. A historically literate person knows that a history book or television
documentary is someone’s interpretation and not the whole truth about the past
and nothing but the truth.
8 Historical Literacy

Historical literacy also can be defined in the traditional sense of a person being
able to read and write. In this respect, the goal of historical literacy is to enable
students to read history texts critically, to write thoughtfully, and to engage in
meaningful discussions about the past. Like teachers in many subject areas, history
teachers have come to recognize the importance of integrating content and
reading instruction. The old adage that “every teacher is a teacher of reading”
(Manzo, Manzo, & Thomas, 2004, p. 7) is more applicable than ever. Teachers’
concern about literacy is partly an artifact of our times, when students typically
read and write less, struggle to make up for fewer childhood encounters with
print, and frequently speak a language at home that is different from the language
of the school. For the history classroom, it also reflects the central role that texts
play in history instruction.
History is the most text-rich subject in the school curriculum, except for
literature and language arts. Much of what history students learn comes from
textbooks, supplementary readings, primary sources, and teacher handouts.
However, history texts pose a distinctive set of challenges, especially for younger
students. As Jean Fritz (1982) wrote about her first encounter with a history
textbook, “I skimmed through the pages but couldn’t find any mention of people
at all. There was talk about dates and square miles and cultivation and population
growth and immigration and the Western movement, but it was as if the forest
had lain down and given way to farmland without anyone being brave or scared
or tired or sad, without babies being born, without people dying” (p. 153). Many
of the literary conventions that young students have come to expect from reading
stories are absent from history texts. Their transition to a variety of nonfiction
texts accounts in part for the leveling off of student achievement in reading at the
fourth grade. Early progress in reading, as measured by test scores and grades,
reaches a “fourth-grade slump” as students encounter this content-area reading
barrier (Best, Floyd, & McNamara, 2008).
Even fluent readers being introduced to history are likely to find the
vocabulary, word usage, and the structure of history texts unfamiliar and at times
perplexing. “Historical thinking,” Wineburg (2005) notes, “is a powerful form of
literacy that has the potential to teach us about text in ways that no other area of
the school curriculum can offer” (p. 662). Teaching reading in the content areas
has broadened into a more comprehensive effort to teach “disciplinary literacy,”
as teachers have recognized that vocabulary, text structure, and grammar differ
from one subject matter to another (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).
Writing, too, has always played a major role in history instruction. “History
would not exist without writing,” Henry Steffens (1987) notes, “for ‘doing
history’ means writing history” (p. 219). In recent years, teachers across the
curriculum have placed increased emphasis on “writing to learn,” which is
writing that is central to the learning process itself (Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).
“Writing helps me understand more what I don’t understand about something,”
Jennifer, a sixteen-year-old student in B. M. Mulholland’s classroom, explained.
 Historical Literacy 9

“When I write something out, it clears my mind. … You have more than facts.
You have what you thought about it” (Mulholland, 1987, p. 235). Writing to
learn as well as more conventional report writing is an essential tool for building
historical knowledge.
Discussion is another important tool in the history classroom, especially when
it is student- rather than teacher-centered. Teachers find that student discussions
focused on what they are reading and writing is even more productive. Emily
Schell and Douglas Fisher (2007) label this “accountable talk.” It is accountable
because it encourages students to listen carefully, cite statements accurately, build
on the comments of peers, and use methods of reasoning appropriate to the
discipline. Like writing, a thoughtful discussion helps students understand what
they know and don’t know. As the old adage has it, “‘I know what I think once
I hear what I say’” (Parker, 2001, p. 113). Reading, writing, speaking, and
listening are reciprocal processes that help students build historical knowledge.
They should be literate in this sense as well.
The Common Core State Standards adopted by many schools in the United
States have increased teachers’ awareness of disciplinary literacy. The Common
Core subject-area standards for grades 6–12 are more discipline-specific than the
basic standards for English Language Arts. (Standards below grade 6 are
incorporated into the Common Core K-5 Reading Standards.) To meet the
history/social studies standards, students should be able to analyze primary and
secondary sources, understand key terms and how they are used in a text, and be
able to critically evaluate multiple sources of information (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2012). While not a comprehensive approach to disciplinary
literacy, the Common Core Standards are a step in a positive direction.
Historical literacy is a relative term and a work in progress. The professional
historian’s level of expertise is not a realistic goal for a high school student. The
goal is to help students reach more sophisticated levels of historical literacy as they
progress through the grades. What counts as acceptable progress will differ from
grades 5 to 8 to 11 to college undergraduates. Our task as teachers is not to train
young historians or to transform novice history students into experts. We could
not do that even if we wanted to. School history classrooms have little in common
with graduate history seminars that help prepare the historians of the future.
While students’ work with primary sources is widely acclaimed as an entrée to
historical thinking, it is only a distant relative to the authentic source work of
historians (Barton, 2005). As Chris Husbands (1996) notes, “the place of historical
evidence in the classroom is subtly different from its place in the work of
historians. Unlike historians, school pupils will not claim to generate ‘new’ public
knowledge from the study of (selected) historical evidence; they will generate
new private understandings” (p. 26). These private understandings will help
students become critical historical thinkers.
10 Historical Literacy

A Framework for Historical Literacy

What would classroom instruction look like if historical literacy were the goal of
history education? One can catch glimpses of it in schools where different
components of the new pedagogy are already in place. They are brief sightings
because teachers tend to use them in a highly eclectic fashion, interspersed with
more traditional strategies (Brophy, 2006). This is not inappropriate. It does
mean that the new methods do not yet add up to an integrated approach to
teaching history that has historical literacy as its goal.
Still missing is a framework that organizes these instructional elements into a
coherent pedagogy. This book is an attempt to address that need. It proposes an
organizational framework that we hope teachers will find useful as a guide for
instruction. While it is not the only possible framework, we think that it is a
viable option. In putting it together, we have drawn extensively from the recent
published literature about new directions in history education. It also is the
product of our interaction with teachers. It took shape during a succession of
seminars and workshops with our Historical Literacy Partnership teachers, who
also designed many of the accompanying activities and tried them out in their
classrooms. Before presenting it in detail, we want to make explicit the underlying
principles on which we think any framework for teaching for historical literacy
should rest.
In the first place, any set of recommendations for helping students become
historically literate must honor teachers as professional educators. They are not
educational assembly-line workers. Consequently, it should be an open
framework, not a sealed container. It should free teachers to be creative, not
confine them to a lock-step sequence of instruction. We disagree with those who
regard teachers merely as deliverers of instruction prescribed by outside authorities.
Standards, pacing guides, and frameworks can be useful, but they should not
become straitjackets. Teachers have professional responsibilities as curriculum
gatekeepers, instructional planners, and classroom decision-makers. They must
have sufficient autonomy within the classroom to meet those obligations.
Teaching for historical literacy also has implications for students. To become
historically literate, students must be engaged in their own learning. Historical
knowledge is constructed by students, not prefabricated and delivered at regular
intervals by teachers. This means that the goal of history instruction is a student-
created synthesis in which students pull together the pieces and arrive at their
own interpretations. While the final outcome depends on the students, getting
them there is a shared responsibility. Teachers must help students become and
stay engaged. Motivating students, posing challenging questions, and helping
them see that history is relevant to their own lives must play a large role in
teaching for historical literacy.
Whether students become engaged depends, in turn, on how we present
history to them. They need to see history as an inquiry into the past, not as
 Historical Literacy 11

subject matter to be memorized for a test. Focusing on inquiry places more

responsibility on the student, challenging them to become engaged investigators
rather than passive learners. It invites historical thinking rather than rote learning.
It also enables history teachers to do more than “stand and deliver” factual
knowledge. In an inquiry classroom, teachers are overseers of knowledge
construction rather than deliverers of information. It is the role most consistent
with helping students become historically literate.
Instruction for historical literacy must facilitate learning about the discipline as
well as knowing historical content. This includes history’s singular approach to
critical thinking, reflected, for example, in the way historians analyze sources and
weigh conflicting evidence. But disciplined historical thinking goes well beyond
that. History also has a set of conceptual lenses that focus historical inquiry to help
make sense of the past. History’s unique conceptual structure distinguishes it
from biology and mathematics as much as does its subject matter. Historical
thinkers do not ask questions about evolution or number sequences, but about
change and continuity or cause and effect. Therein also lies the principal
justification for history as a core subject in the school curriculum. A historical
literacy classroom should be a classroom engaged in critical historical analysis and
historical thinking.
In teaching for historical literacy, we must think of disciplinary literacy as a
goal of student learning as well as a means of instruction. Most teachers were
introduced to literacy instruction as a set of strategies or tools that help students
engage with text. These are important, as students must be able to read with
comprehension and to write coherent historical accounts. We must also think
about literacy more broadly and as an inseparable aspect of subject matter learning
(Moje, 2008; Schleppegrell, Achugar, & Oteiza, 2004). To be historically literate,
students must become fluent in the academic language of history, which is not
the same as the language of the home or of the playground. It is also different
from the language of mathematicians or scientists or poets, as each of us constructs
meaning with words in different ways.
A framework for historical literacy must address the role of history in the
school curriculum. Much has been made of the value of history and the social
studies as education for citizenship. Knowledge of history or economics or civics
certainly should contribute to better civic decision-making. Yet, so should an
understanding of accounting, environmental science, or urban planning. In
certain circumstances, the latter may be more valuable. This is only to say that
democratic citizenship depends on well and broadly informed voters and officials.
But it hardly makes the case for history as a core academic subject, one as
indispensable to students as the language arts, mathematics, and science.
Teaching for historical literacy provides a rationale for history education that
is grounded in the discipline itself. History is the only discipline and school
subject primarily concerned about how societies change. Science explores change
in the physical world. Social science and humanities subjects incidentally deal
12 Historical Literacy

with social change, but their focus is elsewhere. History is all about change in
human affairs. The history classroom should be the laboratory in which students
investigate change in the past. Why and how did the American Revolution
or the Civil Rights Movement come about? How did people respond to the
Great Depression and how did it affect their lives? By inviting comparisons
between then and now, focusing on change also helps teachers link the past and
the present.
Finally, a pedagogy for historical literacy should help students understand that
the past has relevance for the present. It should provide students with what Lee
(2011) calls a “usable historical past,” one that is applicable to their own lives
today. Too often, he notes, students feel separated from the past “by a kind of
temporal apartheid” (p. 65). Breaking down this wall does not mean blurring
differences or assuming that people then were just like us, a fallacy known as
“presentism.” It means knowing how the past was both similar and different from
the present, and how such comparisons can help us better understand the world
in which we live. A historically literate individual is one who learns about the
past in order to learn from the past.
The successful teaching of historical literacy gives students the tools they need
to think conceptually about society, analyze present-day events and their
connection to those in the past, critically interpret primary sources, and much
more. But that doesn’t mean it is easy. Teaching for historical literacy demands
an accurate and up-to-date appreciation of its intricacies and its role in the current
educational context, as well as the understanding of a specific pedagogical
framework to guide instruction. This book provides teachers with specific
activities and approaches to employ in promoting historical literacy in their
classrooms. Teachers will find the tools they need to take historical literacy from
theory to implementation. Ultimately, the book helps educators understand the
importance of historical literacy and their role in it. The following chapter-by-
chapter overview describes the order in which this book will address these goals.

Looking Ahead
We follow this introduction to teaching for historical literacy by taking a closer
look at history as a discipline, as a school subject (Chapter 2). In the first place,
history is a way of thinking. Seeing the world through history’s disciplinary lens
is to view it through a set of concepts. These include the ideas of change and
continuity, significance, causation and agency, time and chronology, perspective
analysis, and accounts and evidence. A pedagogy for historical literacy uses these
conceptual filters to ask: What happened in the past? How did it happen? Why
did it take place?
As the above questions suggest, history is an inquiry into the past, both as a
discipline and as a school subject (Chapter 3). It is an evidence-based investigation
about what happened and its significance for us rather than a received body of
 Historical Literacy 13

information to be learned and committed to memory. Teachers guide their

students’ historical inquiry by the kinds of questions they ask and by the classroom
materials and activities they use. An inquiry classroom is like a construction site,
with the teacher and students assigned various and sometimes interchangeable
occupational roles.
History also is knowledge about the past, including factual, procedural,
cognitive, and metacognitive understandings (Chapter 4). We have created a
conceptual model to demonstrate how students build historical knowledge in the
classroom, which begins with a Big Question and concludes with a consideration
of past-present connections. We conclude these introductory chapters by
exploring the implications of history as inquiry for instructional planning (Chapter
5). Teachers must play a major role in deciding what to teach, how to teach it,
and how to assess student learning.
In the third part of the book, we look at how effective teachers get historical
learning underway. Successful teachers spend time before instruction begins by
activating their students’ prior learning, addressing their misconceptions, and
getting them interested and engaged in the topic (Chapter 6). Teachers have
created a variety of K-W-L and Anticipation Guide strategies to make this
“up-front” time productive.
Students must also know the gist of a topic to be able to meaningfully learn
more about it (Chapter 7). Many teachers use graphic overviews to preview
learning, including structured overviews, and concept webs, maps, and murals.
Some have their students preview texts to create their own unit or topic
overviews. Still others use the direct teaching of vocabulary to create a conceptual
overview of the learning to come.
The next series of chapters focuses on building historical knowledge in the
classroom. Students begin this process by looking for and collecting evidence that
addresses the Big Question they have posed. While this necessarily involves
gathering factual information, we are not proposing a “facts-first,” lockstep
approach to learning. Building historical knowledge is a recursive process that
engages students in multiple kinds of learning (factual, procedural, conceptual,
and metacognitive) at virtually the same time. That being said, factual learning is
important, as it provides students with the boards, bricks, and building blocks of
conceptual knowledge (Chapter 8). As they collect evidence, students must also
analyze and evaluate what they are learning. This involves at least three kinds of
reasoning: comparative analysis, textual analysis, and perspective analysis (Chapter
9). Students must critically evaluate evidence to be able to use it effectively and
to understand how it is temporally or causally connected. Making connections
and seeing patterns is the bridge between factual and conceptual knowledge.
Students make connections through written, verbal or graphic historical accounts
(Chapter 10). In doing so, they bring separate elements of understanding together
into a synthesis or coherent whole, which is the capstone of historical learning.
14 Historical Literacy

Teachers have created a variety of culminating assignments that lead to such

evidence-based student accounts (Chapter 11).
If a history unit begins by activating students’ prior knowledge, how should it
end? We conclude by suggesting that teachers provide time at the end of a unit
of instruction to invite students to apply what they learned to their own lives
(Chapter 12). Some teachers do this by looking for historical analogies or
similarities between the past and the present. Others use the past as a distant
mirror to help students understand the time in which they live by seeing how
different it is from the past. Students can also apply what they have learned about
analyzing the perspectives of historical actors to better understand people today.
Having students to be able to use historical knowledge to address the challenges
and opportunities of the present is a worthwhile goal of teaching for historical
literacy.

References
Ahonen, S. (2005). Historical consciousness: A viable paradigm for history education?
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 697–707.
Barton, K. C. (2005). Primary sources in history: Breaking through the myths. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(10), 745–753.
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara D. S. (2008). Differential competencies
contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading
Psychology, 29(2), 137–164.
Brophy, J. (2006). Observational research on generic aspects of classroom teaching. In P.
A. Alexander & P. Winne (eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 755–780).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State
Standards. www.corestandards.org
Dominguez, J. & Pozo, I. J. (1998). Promoting the learning of causal explanations
in history through different teaching strategies. In J. F. Voss & M. Carretero
(eds.) International review of history education, Vol. 2: Learning and reasoning in history
(pp. 344–359). London and Portland, OR: Woburn Press.
Fritz, J. (1982). Homesick: My own story. New York, NY: Dell.
Gagnon, P. & The Bradley Commission on History in Schools (eds.) (1989). Historical
literacy: The case for history in American education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and standardized tests, the K-12
education that every child deserves. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Husbands, C. (1996). Historical forms: Narratives and stories. What is history teaching? Language,
ideas and meaning in learning about the past. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Lee, P. (2007). From national canon to historical literacy. In M. Grever & S. Stuurman
(eds.) Beyond the canon: History for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
 Historical Literacy 15

Lee, P. (2011). History education and historical literacy. In I. Davies (ed.) Debates in history
teaching (pp. 63–72). London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Mandell, N. & Malone, B. (2008). Thinking like a historian: Rethinking history instruction.
Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society Press.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Thomas, M. M. (2004). Content area literacy: Strategic
teaching for strategic learning. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Metzger, S. A. (2007). Pedagogy and the historical feature film: Toward historical literacy.
Film & History, 37(2), 67–75.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and
learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.
Mulholland, B. M. (1987). It’s not just the writing. In Toby Fulwiler (ed.) The journal book
(pp. 227–238). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publisher.
National Curriculum for England. (1999, 2007). History. www.nc.uk.net
Nokes, J. D. (2013). Building students’ historical literacies: Learning to read and reason with
historical texts and evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Parker, W. C. (2001). Classroom discussion: Models for leading seminars and deliberations.
Social Education, 65(2), 111–115.
Partington, G. (1994). Historical literacy. International Journal of Social Education, 9(1),
41–54.
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning:
Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, L. & Klopfer, L. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rodrigo, M. J. (1994). Discussion of chapters 10–12: Promoting narrative literacy and
historical literacy. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes
in history and the social sciences (pp. 309–320). Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Royer, J. M. (2005) The cognitive revolution in educational psychology. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Schell, E. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching social studies: A literacy-based approach. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M. & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing
content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly,
38(1), 67–93.
Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding. In D. R. Olson
& N. Torrance (eds.) The handbook of education and human development: New models of
learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 165–783). Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents:
Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
Steffens, H. (1987). Journal in the teaching of history. In T. Fulwiler (ed.) The journal book
(pp. 219–226). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publisher.
Taylor, T. (2003). Trying to connect: Moving from bad history to historical literacy in
schools. Australian Cultural History, 23, 175–190.
Tierney, R. J. & Shanahan, T. (1991) Research on the reading-writing relationship:
Interactions, transactions and outcomes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (eds.) Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. 246–280). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16 Historical Literacy

Wineburg, S. (2000). Making historical sense. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S.

Wineburg (eds.) Knowing teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives
(pp. 306–329). New York, NY and London: New York University Press.
Wineburg, S. (2005). What does NCATE have to say to future history teachers? Not
much, Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 658–665.
Wineburg, S. & Grossman, P. (2001). Affect and effect in cognitive approaches to
instruction. In S. A. Carver & D. Klahr (eds.) Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years
of progress (pp. 479–492). Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zinsser, J. P. (1995). Real history, real education, real merit: Or why is “Forrest Gump”
so popular? Journal of Social History, 29(1), Supplement, 91–97.
References

1 Historical Literacy

Ahonen, S. (2005). Historical consciousness: A viable

paradigm for history education? Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 37(6), 697–707.

Barton, K. C. (2005). Primary sources in history: Breaking

through the myths. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 745–753.

Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara D. S. (2008). Diff

erential competencies contributing to children’s
comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading
Psychology, 29(2), 137–164.

Brophy, J. (2006). Observational research on generic

aspects of classroom teaching. In P. A. Alexander & P.
Winne (eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
755–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012).

Implementing the Common Core State Standards.
www.corestandards.org

Dominguez, J. & Pozo, I. J. (1998). Promoting the learning

of causal explanations in history through diff erent
teaching strategies. In J. F. Voss & M. Carretero (eds.)
International review of history education, Vol. 2: Learning
and reasoning in history (pp. 344–359). London and
Portland, OR: Woburn Press.

Fritz, J. (1982). Homesick: My own story. New York, NY:

Dell.

Gagnon, P. & The Bradley Commission on History in Schools

(eds.) (1989). Historical literacy: The case for history
in American education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science. New York, NY:

Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and

standardized tests, the K-12 education that every child
deserves. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every

American needs to know. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in
Company.
Husbands, C. (1996). Historical forms: Narratives and
stories. What is history teaching? Language, ideas and
meaning in learning about the past. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.

Lee, P. (2007). From national canon to historical literacy.

In M. Grever & S. Stuurman (eds.) Beyond the canon:
History for the twenty-fi rst century. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Lee, P. (2011). History education and historical literacy.

In I. Davies (ed.) Debates in history teaching (pp.
63–72). London and New York, NY: Routledge.

Mandell, N. & Malone, B. (2008). Thinking like a historian:

Rethinking history instruction. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Historical Society Press.

Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Thomas, M. M. (2004). Content

area literacy: Strategic teaching for strategic learning.
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Metzger, S. A. (2007). Pedagogy and the historical feature

fi lm: Toward historical literacy. Film & History, 37(2),
67–75.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in

secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for
change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2),
96–107.

Mulholland, B. M. (1987). It’s not just the writing. In

Toby Fulwiler (ed.) The journal book (pp. 227–238).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publisher.

National Curriculum for England. (1999, 2007). History.

www.nc.uk.net

Nokes, J. D. (2013). Building students’ historical

literacies: Learning to read and reason with historical
texts and evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.

Parker, W. C. (2001). Classroom discussion: Models for

leading seminars and deliberations. Social Education,
65(2), 111–115.

Partington, G. (1994). Historical literacy. International

Journal of Social Education, 9(1), 41–54.
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995).
Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history.
Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Resnick, L. & Klopfer, L. (1989). Toward the thinking

curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rodrigo, M. J. (1994). Discussion of chapters 10–12:

Promoting narrative literacy and historical literacy. In
M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (eds.) Cognitive and
instructional processes in history and the social sciences
(pp. 309–320). Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Royer, J. M. (2005) The cognitive revolution in educational

psychology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Schell, E. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching social studies: A

literacy-based approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson,
Merrill Prentice Hall.

Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M. & Oteiza, T. (2004). The

grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction
through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly,
38(1), 67–93.

Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical

understanding. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (eds.) The
handbook of education and human development: New models of
learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 165–783). Cambridge,
MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary

literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy.
Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

Steff ens, H. (1987). Journal in the teaching of history.

In T. Fulwiler (ed.) The journal book (pp. 219–226).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publisher.

Taylor, T. (2003). Trying to connect: Moving from bad

history to historical literacy in schools. Australian
Cultural History, 23, 175–190.

Tierney, R. J. & Shanahan, T. (1991) Research on the

reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions
and outcomes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (eds.) Handbook of reading research,
Vol. II (pp. 246–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Wineburg, S. (2000). Making historical sense. In P. N.

Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (eds.) Knowing teaching
and learning history: National and international
perspectives (pp. 306–329). New York, NY and London: New
York University Press.

Wineburg, S. (2005). What does NCATE have to say to future

history teachers? Not much, Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9),
658–665.

Wineburg, S. & Grossman, P. (2001). Aff ect and eff ect in

cognitive approaches to instruction. In S. A. Carver & D.
Klahr (eds.) Cognition and instruction: Twenty-fi ve years
of progress (pp. 479–492). Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Zinsser, J. P. (1995). Real history, real education, real

merit: Or why is “Forrest Gump” so popular? Journal of
Social History, 29(1), Supplement, 91–97.
2 Historical Thinking

Ashby, R. (2011). Understanding historical evidence:

Teaching and learning challenges. In I. Davies (ed.)
Debates in history teaching (pp. 137–147). London:
Routledge.

Blow, F. (2011). “Everything fl ows and nothing stays:” How

students make sense of the historical concepts of change,
continuity and development. Teaching History, 145, 47–55.

Boddington, T. (1984). The Schools Council History 13–16

Project. History and Social Science Teacher, 19(3),
129–137.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Fertig, G., Rios-Alers, J., & Seilbach, K. (2005). What’s

important about the past: American fourth graders’
interpretations of historical signifi cance. Educational
Action Research, 13(3), 435–451.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and

standardized tests, the K-12 education that every child
deserves. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Hallden, O. (1997). Conceptual change and the learning of

history. International Journal of Educational Research,
27(3), 201–210.

Hartley, L. P. (1953). The go-between. London: Hamish

Hamilton.

Howell, H. & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources:

An introduction to historical methods. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.

Jenkins, K. (1991). Re-thinking history. London: Routledge.

Lee P. (2005) Putting principles into practice:

Understanding history. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford
(eds.) How students learn: History in the classroom (pp.
31–78). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Lévesque, S. (2008). Thinking historically: Educating

students for the twenty-fi rst century. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.

Limon, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In M. Limon

& L. Mason (eds.) Reconsidering conceptual change (pp.
259–289). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. New

York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

National Curriculum for England. (2007). History.

www.nc.uk.net

Peck, C. & Seixas, P. (2008). Benchmarks of historical

thinking: First steps. Canadian Journal of Education,
31(4), 1015–1038.

Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical

understanding. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (eds.) The
handbook of education and human development: New models of
learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 765–783). Cambridge,
MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Seixas, P. (1997). Teaching history in a changing world:

Mapping the terrain of historical signifi cance. Social
Education, 61(1), 22–27.

Seixas, P. & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching historical thinking.

In A. Sears & I. Wright (eds.) Challenges and prospects
for Canadian social studies (pp. 109–117). Vancouver:
Pacifi c Educational Press.

Shemilt, D. (1980). History 13–16: Evaluation study.

Edinburgh: Holmes McDougall.

Stearns, P. N. (1998a). Goals in history teaching. In J. F.

Voss & M. Carretero (eds.) International review of history
education, Vol. 2: Learning and reasoning in history (pp.
281– 293). London and Portland, OR: Woburn Press.

Stearns, P. N. (1993). Meaning over memory: Recasting the

teaching of culture and history. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.

Steel, D. (1989). The teaching of history - new history

1968-88. History Resource, 2 (3), 3-9.

Thornton, S. J. (1997). First-hand study: Teaching history

for understanding. Social Education, 61(1), 11–12.

Van Sledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking

history education: On practices, theories, and policy. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Walsh, W. H. (1974). Colligatory concepts in history. In P.
Gardiner (ed.) The philosophy of history (pp. 127–144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zarnowski, M. (2006). Making sense of history: Using

high-quality literature and hands-on experiences to build
content knowledge. New York, NY: Scholastic.
3 History as Inquiry

Alder, D. (1975). Why am I teaching history anyway? (And

how should I teach it?). In G. M. Linden & M. T. Downey
(eds.) Teaching American history: Structured inquiry
approaches (pp. 1–9). Boulder, CO: ERIC Clearinghouse for
Social Studies/Social Science Education and Social Science
Education Consortium, Inc.

Aulls, M. W. (2008). Developing students’ inquiry

strategies: a case study of teaching history in the middle
grades. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt
(eds.) Inquiry in education, Vol. II: Overcoming barriers
to successful implementation (pp. 1–49). New York and
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aulls, M. W. & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education,

Vol. I. New York and Oxon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Taylor and Francis Group.

Banchi, H. & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry.

Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.

Beyer, B. K. (1994). Gone but not forgotten: Refl ections

on the new social studies movement. Social Studies, 85,
251–255.

Collins, P. J. (1990). Bridging the gap. In Nancie Atwell

(ed.) Coming to know: Writing to learn in the intermediate
grades (pp. 17–31). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Counsell, C. (2000). Historical knowledge and historical

skills: A distracting dichotomy. In S. Capel, J. Lori
Davison, J. Arthur, & J. Moss (series eds.), & J. Arthur &
R. Philips (vol. eds.) Issues in subject teaching series
(pp. 54–71). London: Routledge.

Fischer, D. H. (1970). Historians’ fallacies: Toward a

logic of historical thought. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers.

Foster, S. J. & Padgett, C. S. (1999) Authentic historical

inquiry in the social studies classroom. Clearing House,
72(6), 357–363.

Hartzler-Miller, C. (2001). Making sense of “Best Practice”

in teaching history. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 29(4), 672–695.

Hoyt, L. (2002). Make it real: Strategies for success with

informational texts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Jennings, L. B. & Mills, H. (2009). Constructing a

discourse of inquiry: Findings from a fi ve-year
ethnography at one elementary school. Teachers College
Record, 111(7), 1583–1618.

Jensen, E. & Nickelsen, L. (2008). Deeper learning: 7

powerful strategies for in-depth and longerlasting
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why

minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An
analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

Kohlmeier, J. (2005). The impact of having 9th graders “Do

History.” History Teacher, 38(4), 499–516.

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007).

Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport,
CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Mandell, N. & Malone, B. (2007). Thinking like a historian:

Rethinking history instruction. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Historical Society Press.

Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defi ning inquiry. Science

Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.

McConachie, S., Hall, M., Resnick, L., Ravi, A. K., Bill,

V. L., Bintz, J., & Taylor, J. A. (2006). Task, text, and
talk. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 8–14.

Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and

summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing
on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum
Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.

Rodrigo, M. J. (1994). Discussion of chapters 10–12:

Promoting narrative literacy and historical literacy. In
M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (eds.) Cognitive and
instructional processes in history and the social sciences
(pp. 309–320). Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary. New York: Viking

Penguin.
Tunnell, G. & Ammon, J. (1993). Teaching the Holocaust
through trade books. In M. O. Tunnell & R. Ammon (eds.)
The story of ourselves: Teaching history through children’s
literature (pp. 115–134). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books, Inc.

Van Drie, J. & van Boxtel, C. (2003). Developing conceptual

understanding through talk and mapping. Teaching History,
110, 27–31.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design

(expanded 2nd edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ and
Alexandria, VA: Pearson Education/Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
4 Historical Knowledge

American History in Schools and Colleges (1944). Report of

the Committee on American History in Schools and Colleges
of the American Historical Association, the Mississippi
Valley Historical Association, the National Council for the
Social Studies. New York: Macmillan.

Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional

information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology,
6, 451–474.

Anderson, J. R. & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan eff ect: New

results and new theories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 128(2), 186–197.

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (eds.) (2001). A

taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision
of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives (complete
edition). New York, NY: Longman.

Baker, L. (2010). Metacognition. In P. Peterson, E. Baker,

& B. McGaw (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Education,
Vol. 5 (pp. 204–209). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (2002). Questioning the

author: Making sense of social studies. Educational
Leadership, 60(4), 44-47.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at

university: What the student does. Buckingham, UK: SRHE
and Open University Press.

Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or

approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L., Zhang (eds.)
Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles
(pp. 73–102). Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality

of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic
Press, Inc.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H.,

& Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classifi cation of educational goals.
Handbook I Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay
Company, Inc.

Bunting, M.F., Conway, A. R. A., & Heitz, R. P. (2004).

Individual diff erences in the fan eff ect and working
memory capacity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51,
604–622.

Callison, D. (1998). Metacognition. School Library Media

Activities Monthly, 14(7), 43–44.

Colorado Department of Education. (2010).

http://www.cde.state.co.us/
standardsandinstruction/index.asp

Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of

processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.

Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W.

(eds.) (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and
practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Downey, M. T. (1988). Reforming the history curriculum. In

B. R. Giff ord (ed.). History in the schools: What shall
we teach? (pp. 198–213). New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Gardner, H. (2006). The development and education of the

mind: The selected works of Howard Gardner. London and New
York, NY: Routledge Taylor and Francis.

Garner-Miller, K. (2007). Playful textbook previews:

Letting go of familiar mustache monologues. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(4), 284–288.

Gerwin, D. & Visone, F. (2006). The freedom to teach:

Contrasting history teaching in elective and state-tested
courses. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(2),
259–282.

Grant, S. G. (2005). More journey than end: A case study of

ambitious teaching. In E. A. Yeager & O. L. Davis, Jr.
(eds.) Wise social studies teaching in an age of
high-stakes testing: Essays on classroom practices and
possibilities (pp. 117–130). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.

Jensen, E. & Nickelsen, L. (2008). Deeper learning: 7

powerful strategies for in-depth and longerlasting
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lee P. (2005) Putting principles into practice:

Understanding history. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford
(eds.) How students learn: History in the classroom (pp.
31–78). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for

academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. and Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy

of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in

secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for
change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2),
96–107.

Newmann, F. W. (1988). Can depth replace coverage in the

high school curriculum? Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 345–348.

Nuthall, G. (2000). The role of memory in the acquisition

and retention of knowledge in science and social studies
units. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 83–139.

Onosko, J. J. (1991). Barriers to the promotion of higher

order thinking in social studies. Theory and Research in
Social Education, 19(4), 341–366.

Pearcy, M. & Duplass, J. A. (2011). Teaching history:

Strategies for dealing with breadth and depth in the
standards and accountability age. Social Studies, 102(3),
110–116.

Pellegrino, A. M. (2008). The manifestation of critical

thinking and metacognition in secondary American history
students through the implementation of lesson plans and
activities consistent with historical thinking skills.
Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.
Dissertation Abstracts: International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences, 68(9-A), 3793.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge

in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 219–225.

Radvansky, G.A. (1999). The fan eff ect: a tale of two

theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128(2),
198-206.

Rosie, A. (2000). Deep learning. Active Learning In Higher

Education, 1(1), 45–59.
Scheurman, G. (2008). Poetry and postholes: Making history
instruction deeper and more personal. Social Education,
72(7), 350–353.

Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical

understanding. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (eds.). The
handbook of education and human development: New models of
learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 165–783). Cambridge,
MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Seixas, P. & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching historical thinking.

In A. Sears & I. Wright (eds.) Challenges and prospects
for Canadian social studies (pp. 109–117). Vancouver:
Pacifi c Educational Press.

Siegler, R. S. (2001). Cognition, instruction and the quest

for meaning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (eds.) Cognition
and instruction: Twenty-fi ve years of progress (pp.
195-204). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spoehr, K. T. (1994). Enhancing the acquisition of

conceptual structures through hypermedia. In K. McGilly
(ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
classroom practice (pp. 75–101). Cambridge, MA and London:
MIT Press.

Van Hover, S. D. & Heinecke, W. F. (2005). The impact of

accountability reform on the “Wise Practice” of secondary
history teachers: The Virginia experience. In E. A. Yeager
& O. L. Davis (eds.) Wise practice in the teaching and
learning of history in an era of high stakes testing (pp.
89–116). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Van Sledright, B. (1997). Can more be less? The

depth-breadth dilemma in teaching American history. Social
Education, 61(1), 38–41.

Van Sledright, B. & Frankes, L. (2000). Concept-and

strategic-knowledge development in historical study: A
comparative exploration in tow fourth-grade classrooms.
Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 239–283.

Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding

while writing essays in history. International Journal of
Educational Research, 27(3), 255–265.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of
the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of
documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.

Wolfe, M. B. W. & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between

adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and
Instruction, 23(4), 467–502.

Yeager, E. A. (2005). Introduction: The “wisdom of

practice” in the challenging context of standards and
high-stakes testing. In E. A. Yeager & O. L. Davis, Jr.,
Wise social studies teaching in an age of high-stakes
testing: Essays on classroom practices and possibilities.
(pp. 1–9). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
5 Plan Instruction

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom

learning. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–71.

Brookhart, S., Moss, C., & Long, B. (2008). Formative

assessment. Educational Leadership,

66(3), 52–57.

Brookhart, S. M. & Durkin, D. T. (2003). Classroom

assessment, student motivation, and

achievement in high school social studies classes. Applied

Measurement in Education,

16(1), 27-54.

Brown, S. D. (2013). Preparing eff ective history teachers:

The assessment gap. Journal of

Social Studies Research, 37, 167–177.

Buhagiar, M. A. (2007). Classroom assessment within the

alternative assessment paradigm:

revisiting the territory. The Curriculum Journal, 18(1),

39–56.

Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of

instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott,

Foresman.

Ercikan, K. & Seixas, P. (2015). New directions in

assessing historical thinking. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning,

and testing in U.S. high school classrooms.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grossman, P. L. & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as

context: The role of school subjects

in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher,

24(8), 5–23.

Guthrie, J. T. (2003). Concept-oriented reading

instruction. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow

(Eds.) Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 115-140). New

York, London: The

Guilford Press.

Hallden, O. (1994). On the paradox of understanding history

in an educational setting. In

Leinhardt, G., Beck, I. L.,& Stainton, C. (Eds.), Teaching

and learning in history (pp.

27–46). Hillsdale, New Jersey, and Hove, UK: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Hallden, O. (1998). Personalization in historical

descriptions and explanations. Learning

and Instruction, 8(2), 131-139.

Jonassen, D. H. & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of

individual diff erences, learning, and

instruction, Part VII: Prior knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Libresco, A. S. (2005). How she stopped worrying and

learned to love the test … sort of.

In E. A. Yeager & O. L. Davis (eds.) Wise social studies

teaching in an age of high-stakes

testing: Essays on classroom practices and possibilities

(pp. 33–49). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for

academic achievement. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessments and grading

that work. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Morin, J. H. (2003). Social studies instruction
incorporating the language arts. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Report of the National

Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based

assessment of the scientifi c research

literature on reading and its implications for reading

instruction (NIH Publication No.

00–4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Offi ce.

Nokes, J. D. (2013). Building students’ historical

literacies: Learning to read and reason with

historical texts and evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ogle, D., Klemp, R., & McBride, B. (2007). Building

literacy in the social studies. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reynolds, R. E. & Sinatra, G. M. (2005) The cognitive

revolution in scientifi c psychology:

Epistemological roots and impact on reading research. In J.

M. Royer (ed.) The cognitive

revolution in educational psychology (pp. 13–39).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Publishing.

Ryder, R. J. & Graves, M. F. (1998). Reading and learning

in content areas (2nd edn.). New

York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Thornton, S. J. (1991).Teacher as curricular-instructional

gatekeeper in social studies. In

J. P. Shaver (ed.) Handbook of research on social studies

teaching and learning (pp. 237–248).

New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Van Boxtel, C. A. M. & van Rijn, M. (2006). Picturing
colligatory concepts in history:

Eff ects of student–generated versus presented drawings.

Proceedings of the EARLI SIG

Text and Graphics Comprehension, Nottingham University, UK,

5–7.

Walsh, W. H. (1974). Colligatory concepts in history. In P.

Gardiner (ed.) The philosophy

of history (pp. 127–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design.

Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design

(expanded 2nd edn.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ and Alexandria, VA: Pearson

Education/Association for Supervision

& Curriculum Development.

Willis, J. (2006). Research-based strategies to ignite

student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). This

page intentionally left blank
6 Activate Prior Learning

Allen, J. (2000). Yellow brick roads: Shared and guided

paths to independent reading. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.

Allen, J. & Landaker, C. (2005). Reading history: A

practical guide to improving literacy. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Aulls, M. W. (2008). Developing students’ inquiry

strategies: A case study of teaching history in the middle
grades. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt
(eds.) Inquiry in education, Vol. II: Overcoming barriers
to successful implementation (pp. 1-49). New York, NY and
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bain, R.B. (2000). Into the breach: Using research and

theory to shape history instruction. In Stearns, P.N.,
Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.) Knowing, teaching, and
learning history: National and international perspectives
(pp. 331-352). New York, NY: University Press.

Barton, K. C. (2005). Primary sources in history: Breaking

through the myths. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 745–753.

Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The

relation between assessment practices and outcomes of
studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of
Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186.

Downs, A. (1993) Breathing life into the past: The creation

of history units using trade books. In M. O. Tunnell and
R. Ammon (eds.), The story of ourselves: Teaching history
through children’s literature (pp. 137–145). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Duff elmeyer, F.A. (1994). Eff ective AG statements for

learning from expository prose. Journal of Reading, 37(6),
452-457.

Duff elmeyer, F. A. & Baum, D. D. (1992). The extended AG

revisited. Journal of Reading, 35(8), 654–656.

Dulberg, N. (2002). Engaging in history: Empathy and

perspective-taking in children’s historical thinking.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Fertig, G. (2001). Hard times and New Deals: Teaching fi

fth-graders about the Great Depression. Social Education,
65(1), 34–40.

Head, M. H. & Readence, J. E. (1992). AGs: Using prediction

to promote learning from text. In E. K. Dishner, T. W.
Bean, J. E. Readence, & D. W. Moore (eds.) Reading in the
content areas: Improving classroom instruction (pp.
227–233). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.

Levstik, L. S. & Barton, K. C. (1997). Doing history:

Investigating with children in elementary and middle
schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for

academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops

active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher,
39(6), 564–571.

Ogle, D. M. (1992). K-W-L in action: Secondary teachers fi

nd applications that work. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean,
J. E. Readence, & D. W. Moore. Reading in the content
areas: Improving classroom instruction (3rd edn.) (pp.
270–282). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.

Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1995).

Content area reading: An integrated approach. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.

Readence, J. E., Moore, W. D., & Rickelman, R. J. (2000).

Prereading activities for content area reading and
learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Sampson, M. B. (2002). Confi rming the K-W-L: Considering

the source. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 528–532.

Selwyn, D. (1993). Living history in the classroom:

Integrative arts activities for making social studies
meaningful. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.

Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning.

Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37-54.

Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (1997). Conceptual understanding in

history. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
11(2), 147–158.

Woelders, A. (2007). “It makes you think more when you

watch things”: Scaff olding for historical inquiry using
fi lm in the middle school classroom. Social Studies,
98(4), 145–152.
7 Preview the Learning to Come

Ausubel, D. P. & Robinson, F. G. (1969). School learning:

An introduction to educational

psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978).

Educational psychology: A cognitive view

(2nd edn.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Baumann, J. F., Ware, D., & Edwards, E. C. (2007). “Bumping

into spicy, tasty words

that catch your tongue”: A formative experiment on

vocabulary instruction. The

Reading Teacher, 61(2), 108–122.

Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of

vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr,

M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (eds.) Handbook

of reading research, Vol. II

(pp. 789–814). New York, NY: Longman.

Dewhurst, S. A. & Conway, M. A. (1994). Pictures, images,

and recollective experience.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(5), 1088–1098.

Donnelly, W. B. & Roe, C. J. (2010). Using sentence frames

to develop academic

vocabulary for English learners. The Reading Teacher,

64(2), 131–136.

Downs, A. (1993) Breathing life into the past: The creation

of history units using trade

books. In M. O. Tunnell & R. Ammon (eds.) The story of

ourselves: Teaching history

through children’s literature (pp. 137–145). Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Farris, P. J. & Downey, P. M. (2004). Concept muraling:

Dropping visual crumbs along
the instructional trail. The Reading Teacher, 58(4),
376–380.

Faulkner, J. (2010). Reducing vocabulary to increase

vocabulary: Student-centered

vocabulary instruction for writing that makes a diff

erence. English Journal, 100(1),

113–116.

Fordham, N. W., Wellman, D., & Sandmann, A. (2002). Taming

the text: Engaging and

supporting students in social studies readings. Social

Studies, 93(4), 149–158.

Graves, M. F. (1987). The roles of instruction in fostering

vocabulary development. In M.

G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (eds.) The nature of vocabulary

acquisition (pp. 165–184).

Hillsdale, JN: Erlbaum.

Hallden, O. (1994). On the paradox of understanding history

in an educational setting. In

Leinhardt, G., Beck, I. L., & Stainton, C. (eds.) Teaching

and learning in history (pp. 27–

46). Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Harmon, J. M. & Hedrick, W. B. (2000), Zooming in and

zooming out: Enhancing

vocabulary and conceptual learning in social studies. The

Reading Teacher, 54(2),

155–159.

Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B., & Wood, K. D. (2005).

Research on vocabulary

instruction in the content areas: implications for

struggling readers. Reading and Writing

Quarterly, 21, 261–280.

Johnson, M. J. & Janisch, C. (1998). Connecting literacy
with social studies content. Social

Studies & the Young Learner, 10(4), 6–9.

Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2000). Training reading

comprehension in adequate decoders/

poor comprehenders: Verbal versus visual strategies.

Journal of Educational Psychology,

92(4), 772–782.

Kelley, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Kieff er, M. J., & Faller, S.

E. (2010). Eff ective academic

vocabulary instruction in the urban middle school. The

Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5–14.

Kellough, R. D., Jarolimek, J., Parker, W. C., Martorella,

P. H., Tompkins, G. E., &

Hoskisson, K. (1996). Integrating language arts and social

studies for intermediate and middle

school students. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice–Hall, Inc.

Lee P. (2005) Putting principles into practice:

understanding history. In M. S. Donovan &

J. D. Bransford (eds.) How students learn: History in the

classroom (pp. 31–78). Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for

academic achievement. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic

vocabulary: Teacher’s Manual.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Morin, J. H. (2003). Social studies instruction

incorporating the language arts. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Readence, J. E., Moore, W. D., & Rickelman, R. J. (2000).

Prereading activities for content

area reading and learning. Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Robb, L. (2003). Teaching reading in social studies,

science, and math: Practical ways to weave

comprehension strategies into your content area teaching.

New York, NY: Scholastic.

Sadoski, M. & Pavio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual

coding theory of reading and writing.

Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schwartz, D. & Heiser, J. (2006) Spatial representations

and imagery in learning. In R. K.

Sawyer (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of the learning

sciences (pp. 283–298). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2008). Content area reading:

Literacy and learning across the

curriculum. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Van Drie, J. & van Boxtel, C. (2003). Developing conceptual

understanding through talk

and mapping. Teaching History, 110, 27–31.

Weisman, E. M. & Hansen, L. E. (2007). Strategies for

teaching social studies to English

language learners at the elementary level. Social Studies,

98(5), 180–184. This page intentionally left blank
8 Collect Evidence

Allen, J. (2000). Yellow brick roads: Shared and guided

paths to independent reading. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.

Alvermann, D. E. & Swaff ord, J. (1989). Do content area

strategies have a research base? Journal of Reading,
32(5), 388–394.

Angelillo, J. (2003). Writing about reading. Portsmouth,

NH: Heineman.

Aulls, M. W. (2008). Developing students’ inquiry

strategies: A case study of teaching history in the middle
grades. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt
(eds.) Inquiry in education, Vol. II: Overcoming barriers
to successful implementation (pp. 1–49). New York, NY and
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bain, R. B. (2005) They thought the world was fl at. In M.

S. Donovan & J. D. Branford (eds.). How students learn:
History in the classroom (pp. 179–213). Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.

Bamford, R. A. & Kristo, J. V. (1998). Making facts come

alive: Choosing quality nonfi ction literature K-8 (pp.
259–264). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (1994). Outcomes of history

instruction: Paste-up accounts. In M. Carretero & J. F.
Voss (eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in
history and the social sciences (pp. 237–256). Hillsdale,
NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Button, K. (1998). Linking social studies and literacy

development through children’s books. Social Studies and
the Young Learner, 10(4), 23–25.

Coffi n, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of

time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.

Collins, P. J. (1990). Bridging the gap. In N. Atwell (ed.)

Coming to know: Writing to learn in the intermediate
grades (pp. 17–31). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Davis, B. H., Rooze, G. E., & Tallent, M. K. (1992).

Writing-to-learn in elementary social studies. Social
Education, 56(7), 393–397.
Edwards, T. (1992). Teacher talk and pupil competence: A
response to section 4. In K. Norman (ed.) Thinking voices:
The work of the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.

Faber, J. E., Morris, J. D., & Lieberman, M. G. (2000). The

eff ect of note taking on ninth grade students’
comprehension. Reading Psychology, 21(3), 257–270.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Williams, D. (2002). Seven literacy

strategies that work. Educational Leadership, 60(3),
70–73.

Holt, T. C. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative,

imagination, and understanding. New York, NY: College
Entrance Examination Board.

Husbands, C. (1996). Historical forms: Narratives and

stories. What is history teaching? Language, ideas and
meaning in learning about the past. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.

Key, L., Bradley, J. A., & Bradley, S. (2010). Stimulating

instruction in social studies. Social Studies, 101(3),
117–120.

Knight, S. L., Waxman, H. C., & Padron, Y. N. (1989).

Students’ perceptions of relationships between social
studies instruction and cognitive strategies. Journal of
Educational Research, 82, 270–276.

Kobrin, D. (1996). Beyond the textbook: Teaching history

using documents and primary sources. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Kohlmeier, J. (2005). The impact of having 9th graders “do

history”. History Teacher, 38(4), 499–516.

Lee, C. D. & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the

disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New
York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.

Lesh, B. A. (2011). “Why don’t you just tell us the

answer?” Teaching historical thinking in grades 7–12.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Levstik, L. S. & Barton, K. C. (1997). Doing history:

Investigating with children in elementary and middle
schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lombard, R. H. (1996). Using trade books to teach middle
level social studies. Social Education, 60(4), 223–226.

Maxim, D. (1998). Nonfi ction literature as the “text” of

my intermediate classroom: That’s a fact. In R. A. Bamford
& J. V. Kristo (eds.) Making facts come alive (pp. 247–
258). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

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.

Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and

summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing
on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum
Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.

Moss, B. (2003). Exploring the literature of fact:

Children’s nonfi ction trade books in the elementary
classroom (pp. 56–61). New York, NY and London: Guilford
Press.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientifi c research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No.
00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Offi ce.

Ogle, D., Klemp, R., & McBride, B. (2007). Building

literacy in the social studies. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reynolds, R. E. & Sinatra, G. M. (2005) The cognitive

revolution in scientifi c psychology: Epistemological
roots and impact on reading research. In J. M. Royer (ed.)
The cognitive revolution in educational psychology (pp.
13–39). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Robinson, F. P. (1946). Eff ective study. New York, NY:

Harper and Brothers.

Ryder, R. J. & Graves, M. F. (1998). Reading and learning

in content areas (2nd edn.). New York, NY: John Wiley and
Sons.

Schell, E. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching social studies: A

literacy-based approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson,
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary
literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy.
Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

Sharp, T. (2008). How can teacher talk support learning?

Linguistics and Education, 19, 132–148.

Smith, F. R. & Feathers, K. M. (1983). Teacher and student

perceptions of content area reading. Journal of Reading,
26(4), 348–354.

Stien, D. & Beed, P. L. (2004). Bridging the gap between fi

ction and nonfi ction in the literature circle setting.
The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 510–518.

Tomlinson, C. A. & Eidson, C. C.. (2003). Diff erentiation

in practice: A resource guide for diff erentiating
curriculum, grades 5–9. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Van Sledright, B. A. & Frankes, L. (2000). Concept-and

strategic-knowledge development in historical study: A
comparative exploration in tow fourth-grade classrooms.
Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 239–283.

Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding

while writing essays in history. International Journal of
Educational Research, 27(3), 255–265.

Willingham, D. T. (2006). The usefulness of brief

instruction in reading comprehension strategies. American
Educator, 30(4), 39–50.

Wineburg, S. (2005). What does NCATE have to say to future

history teachers? Not much. Phi Delta Kappan , 86(9),
658–665.

Wineburg, S., Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Reading

like a historian: Teaching literacy in middle and high
school history classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
9 Analyze and Evaluate

Bain, R. B. (2000). Into the breach: Using research and

theory to shape history instruction. In P. N. Stearns, P.
Seixas, & S. Wineburg (eds.) Knowing, teaching, and
learning history: National and international perspectives
(pp. 331–352). New York, NY: University Press.

Beck, I. & McKeown, M.G. (2006). Improving comprehension

with questioning the author. New York, NY: Scholastic
Teaching Resources.

Blake, M. (1990). Learning logs in the upper elementary

grades. In N. Atwell (ed.) Coming to know. Writing to
learn in the intermediate grades (pp. 53–60). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc. and Concord,
Ontario, Canada: Irwin Publishing.

Downey, M. T. (1994). After the dinosaurs: Children’s

chronological thinking. Paper presented at annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.

Downey, M. T. (1995). Perspective taking and historical

thinking: Doing history in a fi fth-grade classroom. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Dulberg, N. (2002). Engaging in history: Empathy and

perspective-taking children’s historical thinking. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Good, J. M. (1968). The shaping of western society: An

inquiry approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.

Goodwin, D. K. (2005) Team of Rivals: The Political Genius

of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lesh, B. A. (2011). “Why don’t you just tell us the

answer?” Teaching historical thinking in grades 7–12.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Libresco, A. S. (2005). How she stopped worrying and

learned to love the test … sort of. In E.A. Yeager & O. L.
Davis (eds.) Wise social studies teaching in an age of
high-stakes testing: Essays on classroom practices and
possibilities (pp. 33–49). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001).
Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in

secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for
change, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2),
96–107.

Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of historical writing

instruction: A comparative case study of two teachers’
practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4),
1045–1079.

Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and

summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing
on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum
Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.

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.

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995).

Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history.
Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A

document-based history curriculum intervention in urban
high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112

Riley, K. L. (1998). Historical empathy and the Holocaust:

Theory into practice. International Journal of Social
Education, 13(1), 32–42.

Schell, E. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching social studies: A

literacy-based approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson,
Merrill Prentice Hall.

Secules, T. & Ford, A. (2006). Divide and conquer:

Detecting patterns that explain the big picture. Social
Education, 70(2), 89–92.

Steff ens, H. (1987). Journal in the teaching of history.

In T. Fulwiler (ed.) The journal book (pp. 219–226).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publisher.

Van Sledright, B. (1997).Can more be less? The

depth-breadth dilemma in teaching American history. Social
Education, 61(1), 38–41.

Wineburg, S. (1991a). On the reading of historical texts:

Notes on the breach between school and academy. American
Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495–519.

Wineburg, S. (1991b). Historical problem solving: A study

of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of
documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.
10 Make Connections

Barton, K. C. & Levstik, L. (1996). “Back when God was

around and everything”: The development of children’s
understanding of historical time. American Educational
Research Journal, 33(2), 419–454.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at

university: What the student does. Buckingham, UK: SRHE
and Open University Press.

Blow, F., Lee, P., & Shemilt, D. (2012). Time and

chronology: Conjoined twins or distant cousins. Teaching
History, 147, 26–34.

Brophy, J. E. & Van Sledright, B. A. (1997). Teaching and

learning history in elementary schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Carretero, M., Jacott, L., Limon, M., Lopez-Manjon, A., &

Leon, J. A. (1994). Historical knowledge: Cognitive and
instructional implications. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss
(eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and
the social sciences (pp. 357–376). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chapman, A. (2003). Camels, diamonds and counterfactuals: A

model for teaching causal reasoning. Teaching History,
112, 46–53.

Clark, V. (2001). Illuminating the shadow: Making progress

in causal thinking through speaking and listening.
Teaching History, 105, 26–33.

Coffi n, C. (2004). Learning to write history: The role of

causality. Written Communication, 21(3), 261–289.

Coffi n, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of

time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.

Dawson, I. (2004). Time for chronology? Ideas for

developing chronological understanding. Teaching History,
117, 14–24.

Dominguez, J. & Pozo, I. J. (1998). Promoting the learning

of causal explanations in history through diff erent
teaching strategies. In J. F. Voss & M. Carretero (eds.)
International review of history education, Volume 2:
Learning and reasoning in history (pp. 344–359). London
and Portland, OR: Woburn Press.
Downey, M. T. (1994). Historical thinking and perspective
taking in a fi fth-grade classroom. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the College and University Faculty
Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies,
Phoenix, AZ.

Evans, J. & Pate, G. (2007). Does scaff olding make them

fall? Refl ection on strategies for developing causal
argument in Years 8 and 11. Teaching History, 128, 18–29.

Fallace, T. D., Briscoe, A. D., & Perry, J. L. (2007).

Second graders thinking historically: Theory into
practice. Journal of Social Studies Research, 31(1), 44–53.

Gadd, S. (2009). Building memory and meaning: Supporting

Year 8 in shaping their own big narratives. Teaching
History, 136, 34–41.

Hallden, O. (1986). Learning history. Oxford Review of

Education, 12, 53–66.

Hallden, O. (1997). Conceptual change and the learning of

history. International Journal of Educational Research,
27(3), 201–210.

Hallden, O. (1998). On reasoning in history. In J. F. Voss

& M. Carretero (eds.) International review of history
education. Volume 2, Learning and reasoning in history (pp.
272– 277). London and Portland, OR: Woburn Press.

Hodkinson, A. (2003). “History howlers”: Amusing anecdotes

or symptoms of the diffi culties children have in
retaining and ordering historical knowledge? Some
observations based on current research. Research in
Education, 70, 21–36.

Howell, H. & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources:

An introduction to historical methods. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.

Howells, G. (1998). Being ambitious with the causes of the

First World War: Interrogating inevitability. Teaching
History, 92, 16–19.

Kellough, R. D., Jarolimek, J., Parker, W. C., Martorella,

P. H., Tompkins, G. E., & Hoskisson, K. (1996).
Integrating language arts and social studies for
intermediate and middle school students (pp. 396–405).
Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lomas, T. & Batho, G. R. (1993). Teaching and assessing
historical understanding. London: Historical Association.

Maddison, M. (2011). Developing pupils’ chronological

understanding: The view from Ofsted. Primary History, 59,
8–9.

McIlroy, C. (2011). A view from the classroom. Primary

History, 59, 10.

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995).

Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history.
Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A

functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ and London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Spoehr, K. T. (1994). Enhancing the acquisition of

conceptual structures through hypermedia. In K. McGilly
(ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
classroom practice (pp. 75–101). Cambridge, MA and London:
MIT Press.

Tripp, L., Basye, C., Jones, K., & Tripp, V. (2008).

Teaching and learning with time lines. Middle Level
Learning, Supplement to Social Education, 72(4), 4–7.

Vella, Y. (2011). The gradual transformation of historical

situations: Understanding “change and continuity” through
colours and timelines. Teaching History, 144, 16–23.

Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding

while writing essays in history. International Journal of
Educational Research, 27(3), 255–265.

Wood, S. (1995). Developing an understanding of

time-sequencing issues. Teaching History, 79, 11–14.

Woodcock, J. (2011). Causal explanation. In I. Davies (ed.)

Debates in teaching history (pp. 124– 136). London and New
York: Routledge.
11 Synthesize

Callison, D. (1999). Synthesis. School Library Media

Activities Monthly, 15(10), 39–46.

Coffi n, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of

time, cause and evaluation. London:

Continuum.

Cozic, Charles P. (Ed.) (1996) Opposing viewpoints. San

Diego: CA, Greenhaven Press.

De La Paz, S. (2005). Eff ects of historical reasoning

instruction and writing strategy

mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle

school classrooms. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139–156.

De La Paz, S. & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing

from multiple source

documents in history: Eff ects of strategy instruction with

low to average high school

writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174–192.

Gadd, S. (2009). Building memory and meaning: Supporting

Year 8 in shaping their own

big narratives. Teaching History, 136, 34–41.

Greene, S. (1994). The problem of learning to think like a

historian: Writing history in

the culture of the classroom, Educational Psychologist,

29(2), 89–96.

Holt, T. C. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative,

imagination, and understanding. New

York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Lang, S. (2011). Debates: Narrative in school history.

Teaching History, 145, 24.

Leopold, Richard W. & Link, A. S. (Eds.) (1957) Problems in

American History. Englewood
Cliff s, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and

summary: Learning to read

and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective,

and interpretation. Curriculum

Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995).

Text-based learning and reasoning:

Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ and Hove, UK: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Rothschild, E. (2000). The impact of the document-based

question on the teaching of

United States history. History Teacher, 33(4), 495–500.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling

and knowledge transforming in

written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.) Advances in

applied psycholinguistics; Vol. 2

Reading, writing, and language learning. (pp. 142-175).

Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Secules, T. & Ford, A. (2006). Divide and conquer:

Detecting patterns that explain the big

picture. Social Education, 70(2), 89–92.

Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (1997a). Developing understanding

while writing essays in history.

International Journal of Educational Research, 27(3),

255–265.
Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (1997b). Conceptual understanding
in history. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, 11(2), 147–158.

Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1996). The eff ects of “playing

historian” on learning in history.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10 (special issue), S63–S72.

Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from

multiple sources: Tasks that

promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal

of Educational Psychology,

91(2), 1–11.

Young, K. M. & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary

documents: A way of

knowing in history. Written Communication, 15(1), 25–68.

This page intentionally left blank
12 Apply Historical Knowledge

Anderson, M. R. (2011) Connecting the past to the present:

Student meaning making in

a middle school world history classroom. Doctorate of

Education dissertation,

University of Pittsburgh.

Boix-Mansilla, V. (2000). Historical understanding: Beyond

the past and into the present.

In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (eds.) Knowing,

teaching and learning history:

National and international perspectives New York, NY: New

York University Press. (pp.

390-418).

Brooks, S. (2011). Historical empathy as perspective

recognition and care in one secondary

social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 39(2), 166–202.

Brooks, S. (2013). Teaching for historical understanding in

the advanced placement

program: A case study. The History Teacher, 47(1), 61–76.

Brooks, S. (2014). Connecting the past to the present in

the middle-level classroom: A

comparative case study. Theory & Research in Social

Education, 42(1), 65–95.

Dulberg, N. (2002). Engaging in history: Empathy and

perspective-taking children’s

historical thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting

of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Gagnon. P. (1988). Why study history. Atlantic Monthly,

November, 43–66.

Georgia Department of Education. (2008). Seventh grade unit

10: “Connecting Africa’s

past with Africa’s present, p. 1. GeorgiaStandards.Org,

accessed October 20, 2014.

Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning,

and testing in U.S. high school classrooms.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Lawrence, B. S. (1984). Historical perspective: Using the

past to study the present, Academy

of Management Review, 9(2), 307–312.

McNeill, W. H. (1985). Why study history. American

Historical Association: the Professional

Association for all Historians. Retrieved from

http://www.historians.org/pubs/archives/

whmcneillwhystudyhistory.htm

McNeill, W. H. (1989). How history helps us to understand

current aff airs. In P. Gagnon

& The Bradley Commission on History in Schools (eds.)

Historical literacy: The case for

history in American education (pp. 157–169). New York, NY:

Macmillan Publishing

Company.

Miller, M. M. & Stearns, P. N. (1995). Applying cognitive

learning approaches in history

teaching: An experiment in a world history course. History

Teacher, 28(2), 183–204.

Neumann, D. (2010). A diff erent way of viewing history

teaching: Balancing competing

intellectual challenges, Social Education, 74(4), 184–188.

Ogle, D., Klemp, R., & McBride, B. (2007). Building

literacy in the social studies. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Santayana, G. (1905). Reason in common sense. London:
Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2004). Promoting civic competence

through problem-based

history learning experiments. In G. E. Hamot, J. J.

Patrick, & R. S. Leming (eds.) Civic

learning in teacher education (vol. 3, pp. 123–145.).

Bloomington, IN: Social Studies

Development Center.

Schell, E. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching social studies: A

literacy-based approach. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

Stearns, P. N. (1998). Goals in history teaching. In Voss,

J. F. & Carretero, M. (eds.)

International review of history education, Volume 2:

Learning and reasoning in history 281–

293). London and Portland, OR: Woburn Press.

Tosh, J. (2008). Why history matters. Basingstoke,

Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Van Hover, S. D. & Yeager, E. A. (2003). “‘Making’ students

better people?” A case study

of a beginning history teacher. International Social

Studies Forum, 3(1), 219–232.

Wills, J. S. (1996). Who needs multicultural education?

White students, U.S. history, and

the construction of a usable past. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly, 27(3), 365–389.

Wimmer, H. & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs:

Representation and constraining

function of wrong beliefs in your children’s understanding

of deception. Cognition, 69,

1–34. This page intentionally left blank