THE TEACHING OF “HISTORICAL TIME”: PROBLEMS AND DIDACTIC PROPOSALS

THE TEACHING OF “HISTORICAL TIME”: PROBLEMS AND DIDACTIC PROPOSALS

• 1.
  1 THE TEACHING OF“HISTORICAL TIME”: PROBLEMS AND DIDACTIC PROPOSALS Gerardo Daniel Mora Hernández Rosa Ortiz Paz1 _____________________________________________________________ RESUMEN: Señalando la diferencia didáctica entre tiempo histórico y tiempo cronológico, se revisan la propuesta constructivista para la formación de “nociones temporales” y la del “Modelo de Educación Histórica”: la “clase interactiva” y el “shock empático” como estrategias para superar el “presentismo” del alumno de secundaria. Se discuten sus resultados observados en tesis de la Escuela Normal Superior de México (2003-2013). Palabras clave: Tiempo histórico. Interacción con fuentes históricas. Modelo de educación histórica. Clase interactiva. shock empático. _____________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT: Based on the observation of the learning difference between historical time and chronological time is reviewed the constructivist proposal to the formulation of “temporal notions” and “Model of Historical Education”: the “interactive classroom” and “empathic shock” as strategies to overcome the “presentism” of students in high school. . We discuss the results observed in a thesis on Normal School College of Mexico (2003- 2013). Keywords: Historical time. Interaction with historical sources. Model history education. Interactive class. Empathic shock. _____________________________________________________________ RESUMO: Baseado na diferença de aprendizagem entre tempo histórico e tempo cronológico revisa-se a proposta construtivista para a formação de "noções temporais" e de "Modelo de Educação Histórica": a "sala de aula interativa" e o "choque empático" como estratégias para superar a "presenteísmo" do estudante do ensino médio. Discutimos os resultados observados em tese na Escola Normal Superior do México (2003-2013). Palavras-chave: Tempo histórico. Interação com as fontes históricas. Modelo de educação histórica. Classe interativa. Shock empático. 1 Teachers from the Normal School in Mexico.
• 2.
  2 Presentation for História& Ensino Mexico falls behind Brazil when it comes to History teaching methods. One of the reasons is that in Mexico there is a separation between the pedagogical focus within elementary and middle school (students from 5 to 15 years old) and teachers’ practices. Teachers continue to use “expository” methods over “constructive” ones, mainly because of the required “competencies” and “expected learning objectives” (SEP, 2011). Actually, “theory” appears to be unnecessary in practice. As teachers of future middle school (students from 13 to 15 years old) History teachers, we needed to systematize our students’ applied best practices at the Normal School. We created a “teaching model” different from a prescriptive manual (MORA; ORTIZ, 2012), that we called Modelo de Educación Histórica, because of its similarity to the teaching of museum science, patrimony education and other non-schooled methodologies. In Spanish and other literatures, the concept of “Historical Education” has not been theorized. Even though Educação Histórica has been developed in Portugal (BARCA, 2012) and Brazil (CAINELLI; SCHMIDT, 2012), with some German and British influences, from our point of view, this is a new education paradigm already validated (RAMOS, 2012b). Contrasting our Modelo with Educação Histórica, Ramos (2012a) found important similarities (our “situational competences” with their “situated historical cognition”). And we claim to be part of it, first because of the functional goal of the study of History (time orientation), and because of other fundamental
• 3.
  3 matches:  We basedour study on the students’ “previous knowledge,”  The epistemological importance of the “discipline” (secondary concepts) and,  Working with primary sources. Ramos (2012a) defined the Modelo de Educación Histórica as follows: (…) a model of teaching history located between Educação Histórica and Constructivism. The authors consider the construction of “secondary concepts” as fundamental for the ““situational historical cognition,” introducing the work into this construction through “conceptual maps” (RAMOS, 2012a, p.05). We understand that there is an implicit debate about constructivism that requires further development because it is an essential issue for the Educação Histórica as a new paradigm. The difference between the proceduralist principles on the “secondary concepts” and Lee’s (2011) latest opinions about the “vicarious experience” is key. In fact, the “situational historical cognition” does not only refer to mastering the discipline, but it also refers to the empirical and practical knowledge that must be taught and learned. This affects the teaching methodology. For this reason, our Modelo combines “courses” (mastering the discipline) with “collaborative workshops” and an “independent project” of museum science, journalism and performance for the development of the multiple intelligences, empathy, and civic values and competencies. The richness of the Brazilian innovations in this field also improves our sequence of workshops and the final integration project. We emphasize that “conceptual maps” (in Spanish organizadores gráficos, esquemas or diagramas) with which we contribute to mastering the
• 4.
  4 discipline, are atthe center of the “thematic courses.” Even when drawing plans is considered a science in itself, the teaching issue is that this language is required for the student to be able to integrate and analyze the complex historical information. It is likely that Mexico and Brazil share the same low performance in reading and writing among students, and for this reason these tools are insufficient as learning strategies. We have evidence of the learning results with that kind of limitations, which in Mexico are predominant.2 We hope that our contribution to Educação Histórica is useful. We thank Márcia Elisa Teté Ramos for having taken us along with her and her endeavors. 1. Issues 1.1. History as a subject in crisis. In Mexico, at least two million students in middle school take four History lectures a week. The subject became part of the “Social Sciences Section” with the 1974 education reform, and again came back to the curriculum with the 1993 reform. In 2006 History core requirements were focused on teaching “competencies” (the understanding of historical time and space, information and “historical conscience”). In 2011 the focus was, instead, on “expected learnings” (to locate, to know, to explain, to “value” and to do research). The teaching focus (SEP, 2011) is “constructivist,” but in practice teaching continues to be descriptive, ordinary and meaningless for the student, who in turn faces low achievements: The found results do not differ much from other studies of this issue: the learning of historical content in different school levels 2 See http://aprendizajehistoriaensm.blogspot.mx/, https://www.youtube.com/user/gdmhmx, http://www.slideshare.net/gdmhmxy http://independent.academia.edu/GerardoMora
• 5.
  5 mostly comprises ofa list of facts and fragmented and disconnected events, and the understanding of processes and historical periods is superficial. In general, and especially in the case of elementary school, it is really difficult to explain simple, and even less multiple or complex, causality. Given how fragmented the content is, it is impossible to make accurate connections between historical events and thus build a diachronic link between them. Even in the case of older students it was difficult to explain the synchronic relations between political, military, economic and cultural facts in different historical contexts. (DÍAZ-BARRIGA; GARCÍA, 2008: 157). The “why crisis” in History (why is it important to study History?) has not been overcome with the recent changes in the curriculum. For the teenager at school, the combination of everyday obstacles with the cultural diversity of a city like Mexico City creates identity conflicts that are not solved by attending school. Although, the opposite could happen, or better, “nothing happens.” The student confronts the problem of a new identity, going back to his or her “historical culture” (heritage, narratives and identity attitudes) that his or her family, social and cultural environments formed for him or her during childhood. In Mexico, the last governments have modified the official History (PLÁ, 2009). The nationalist, liberal, populist and mestizo version seems to have been abandoned, but there has not been a successful alternative to replace it. This is obvious in the core requirements, the text books, and the celebration of national holidays (CARRETERO, 2007: 125-138). The student continues to receive identity- focused narratives (CARRETERO; ROSA; GONZÁLEZ, 2006). The problem is that these do not have the same memory consequence as before because the media and youth subcultures play a bigger role in it (CHAVES, 2011). If some current events and changes disorient adults, these affect teenagers severely–in
• 6.
  6 some cases causingscholarly fiasco, bullying (VELÁZQUEZ, 2010) and the “lost loss of values.” Students confront these issues with their “historical culture”– resisting them (conservatives, traditionalists), adapting to them (presentist or postmodern) or trying to solve them (progressives). When society confronts conflicts that affect hegemonic values, like it is in our case, the teenager is the first to question them in both public and/or discrete ways. And the teenager seeks reaffirmation, alienating solutions or expresses their conflicts through addiction and pathological behaviors. In any case, it is an important social problem that has been made invisible in many ways. It is here where the study of History at school can play an important role (MUÑOZ REYES; PAGÈS, 2012). 1. 2. What History should we teach? How to teach it? History is taught through narratives (story) or as a domain of processes (History) (MAPOSA; WASSERMANN, 2009). Schools of education have shown “techniques” or “strategies,” some more successful than others, to achieve certain learning goals. Wilschut (2009; 2010) emphasized that neither of these corresponds to the learning of “historical time” (history). For the student, “historical time” is neither the repetition of stories nor a matter of “problem solving,” it is knowledge based and built on experience, and one that provides guidance (ÉTHIER; DEMERS; LEFRANÇOIS, 2010). A recent study (NÚÑEZ, COOPERRIDER and WASSMANN, 2012) demonstrated that a lineal perspective on time is a cultural practice specific to the Western world. Frida Díaz-Barriga and García pointed out that: Historical time is not one-dimension, nor it is absolute or lineal; to be able to understand historical periods and their evolution, it is important to understand permanent processes as well as structural change (social,
• 7.
  7 political, economic), andthe relations between social actors in a specific time and space. Historical time does not have a universal value, it does not happen simultaneously, and it does not have the same meaning across different societies and eras. As a result, the understanding of historical time through a chronology also has relative and locational values (DÍAZ-BARRIGA; GARCÍA, 2008, p. 144). An early educational approach to this issue was the “notions” concept that Asensio, Carretero and Pozo (1989) developed. “Historical time” notions (ASENSIO et al., 1989, p. 134) Notions Sub-notions Chronology Duration Absolute time horizon Periods’ comparison Integration of units of measure Order Previous and subsequent dates Previous and subsequent facts and periods Chronological Eras Before and after Christ Conventions within the system Causality Time and causality Long and short term consequences Relation types Lineal and simple causality Multiple and complex causality Causal types Concrete/abstract (concepts) Static/dynamic Time continuity Synchronic and diachronic integration Social change rhythms Different simultaneous social “times” Change and progress
• 8.
  8 Learning achievements arebased on personal time as well as on physical and social as precedent to the “historical” (ASENSIO et al., 1989, p. 133). Its teaching has to be gradual through the learning of an ensemble of procedures and activities: In this regard, within Trepat’s and Comes’ (1998) theory of education, time categories in the field of Social Sciences include the following three-step sequence of learning activities: identification and experience, decentralization, and extension of the concept. The first activities are directed to identify one’s living experience, later these activities are focused on decentralizing personal experiences of children making relations between life experiences and other artifacts, and external events. Finally, and mostly in the case of teenage education, theory calls to enhance the extension of concepts or constructed categories toward ampler and more abstract time categories (DÍAZ-BARRIGA; GARCÍA, 2008: 147). Although specialists warned of the complexity of this process and the educational difficulties of it (DÍAZ BARRIGA, 1998), its teaching (SIMCHOWITZ, 1992) had two goals: prioritize rational notions over creative ones (imagination, empathy), and undermine biases and common sense as obstacles for learning (CARRETERO; LÓPEZ, 2009: 82). Hence, learning is not functional for “time orientation” (RÜSEN, 2006), “others perceptions or experience” (LEE, 2011) or “historical conscience” (SEP, 2011). Personal interests mediate rational learning, as a group of researchers have noted (IBAÑEZ, 2007) and expert professors have demonstrated. It is not a matter of going back to strict masterly narratives, but to teach the student to interact with “historical cultures” (the “other”) present in the curriculum and relate them to students’ everyday life (“me/we”). In order to achieve this goal it is
• 9.
  9 required to maketheir reaction to historical change more flexible (RÜSEN, 2012; 2012b). We have identified four types of teenage reactions to historical change: presentist, conservative, traditionalist and progressive (ANGUERA; SANTISTEBAN, 2012; MOREIRA, 2011). The student links himself or herself–or not–with the curriculum (CERRI, 2009), its narratives or rituals (González, 2005). The “presentist student” ignores hegemonic History, and the rest adopt it as a reference (CARRETERO; CASTORINA; LEVINAS, s/d). None of the perspectives is critical3 in regards of their own personal and social implications (CHAVES, 2008). The student confronts school’s History with his or her own “historical culture” (MOREIRA, 2012), which in the case of the teenager is dynamic. Both humanity and the individual go through the same understanding stages, Egan says (2000), as a cultural enriching process according to cognitive foundations (oral language, written language, abstract thinking and complex thinking) that one has access to over time. In fact, the student would be going from a romantic understanding to a philosophical one, but going through a somatic understanding (sensitive and volitional) in between because of his or her body and physic changes. 2. Proposal: “interactive openness” and “empathic shock” WILSCHUT (2009; 2010) pointed out the difference between teaching “historical time” and common procedures within the Social Science to make an 3 In a public speaking contestaboutBenito Juárez, a liberal hero,a studentcrossed himself(catholic ritual) before starting his speech.The jury decided that he was the bestout of all the participants.
• 10.
  10 education proposal (frameworks),which includes “lived/experienced time.” Personal time (PIAGET, 1971 apud DÍAZ BARRIGA; GARCÍA, 2008). Lived time Refers to personal and lived experiences, disorganized at first, that contribute to progressively build the idea of time as they come in contact with concrete changes such as body biological rhythms, changes of location, inconveniences and satisfied biological needs, which themselves become gradually organized in categories. Perceived time Or external experiences that translate into spatial representations of lifetime spams; these allow to be conscience of both the personal time through the frequency and consistency, and also a sense of present, past and future times Conceived time Refers to mental experiences that have no concrete references, which would allow the building of positions such as simultaneity and duration, permanency and change, or speed, slowness and fastness. Expecting the learning of historical time–as “conceptual time”–from the students’ “lived time” will only result in a proceduralist learning. The learning of “perceived time” (everyday life and mentalities that change over time) is required as a cognitive bridge between what had been lived and the conceptual time that gives “meaning” to the study of the past. This learning is integral and can be achieved through sensible, rational, practical and functional interactions with historical sources (SANTACANA; MARTÍN, 2012). Museum and patrimony education are the best methodologies for teaching “perceived time,” even though their initial goal was not teaching History (GOSSELIN, 2011). The Educação Histórica (TETÉ RAMOS, 2012b) seeks to teach “locational historical cognition” at school. Our Modelo de Educación Histórica (MORA; ORTIZ, 2012) is linked with this culturalist and functional proposal as it is based in Frida Díaz-Barriga’s contributions (1998, 2006). History education considers subjective and rational learning as functional
• 11.
  11 within personal developmentand also to create “historical thinking.” Our Modelo develops rational learning through two “secondary concepts” (CARRETERO; LÓPEZ, 2009: 77). First, subjective concepts that develop through the perception of historical sources, which we name “sensitive” (narratives, artifacts, immaterial culture). These involve the student’s senses, emotions, feelings and values. Second, a practical interaction with historical sources through the reproduction and representation of them in collaborative workshops and in independent “projects” that students present within their school community. It is important to emphasize the student’s historical culture, and particularly his or her reaction to historical change (to the past, to the present or to the future). To achieve such a subjective learning–being conscience of their own historicity–we use two perception techniques, one “long-term” and another “short- term,” depending on our expectation from the student. Both complement each other, and they need to be combined based on the student’s “previous knowledge”–which the teacher needs to research beforehand. The long-term technique is the “opening” (15 minutes) of the “interactive classroom” (meta-conceptual question, previous organizer and inferential response) with a sensitive historical source, an activity taken from museum education (SANTACANA Y LONCH, 2012). An artifact is presented in a playful way (HEREDUC) to contextualize the topic. This way the teacher links the artifact with the present and gives it relevance. The “family tree box” (CUENCA; ESTEPA, 2005) was a successful experience, for example. The student had to figure the content of the “box” by touching it. Teachers can also blindfold
• 12.
  12 students in frontof objects, so they have to rely on smell, taste or sounds. The immediate technique is the “empathic shock” (a 50 minutes session), which is like a “sensor” that seeks to surprise the student and sensitize him or her towards historical cultures about which he or she is biased and aliened from. The teacher combines various “sensitive” sources articulated in a dramatic narration, looking for the student to spontaneously manifest emotions and feelings that contrast his or her own beliefs and values so that he or she is an “immersed experimenter” (ZWAAN, 2004 apud IBÁÑEZ, 2007). In a sensor activity about the Massacre in the Templo Mayor of May 20, 1520, the teacher used chocolate, pulque, incense and music to create the appropriate environment for his narration, treating the students like Mexicas. 4 The results were quite interesting but not as good as expected given the difficulty of the “educational curatorship.” In another exercise, the students were asked to close their eyes in front of a folded image. Then they were asked to observe the visible part of it, a priest and a cross. The students responded that the image was a religious ceremony, a very common one for them. Then the students were instructed to see the hidden part: a tortured with an executioner. The students were surprised because they initially would not relate religion with violence. This time the teachers expected this result. In regards to the practical and the functional interaction, the activities are similar to those from experimental Anthropology, science initiation, artistic initiation and patrimony education (MARTÍNEZ; LACASA, 2008). These are collaborative workshops of “historical recreation,” made possible through replicas 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjbZjdCH77k
• 13.
  13 or representations (models)of primary sources, “historical journalism,” “propaganda campaigns,” dramatizations, and participation in ceremonies and contests. Such workshops should have conceptual, procedural and attitudinal knowledge integrated as “situational” competences (DÍAZ BARRIGA, 2006). “Interactive classes” and workshops are programmed and divided in five sections within a History course (SEP, 2011). First comes activation (I) of the “multiple intelligences;” and second comes collaborative work (II) to make a museum exhibit with replicas, representations and dioramas; the third stage includes History reading, writing and communicating (III); fourth comes the staging of an event (IV); and (V) fifth, the development of an independent project to present to the community. 3. A discussion of the results. From one hundred documents included in the final report of a study that we advised since 2003, a third of it was directed to sensitive, practical and functional interaction with historical sources. These documents are in a report of six months of teaching in secondary public schools in Mexico D. F. In addition, there is a 2008-2009 MA thesis that analyzed the results of the application of the Modelo during one academic year. The achieved learning through the Modelo de Educación Histórica contradicts the pessimistic interpretation of the standard tests, which are focused on declarative knowledge and not on “civic competencies” (PAGÈS, 2012). The student body learns “situational,” practical and functional knowledge, as it has been internationally demonstrated (VOGLER; MORROW; WOODHEAD, 2009).
• 14.
  14 Furthermore, students canmake interpretations by using graphic organizers, regardless of their comprehensive reading limitations. In our context, only self- regulated students will reach procedural learning. However, even low performance students, 5 will try to give meaning to the activities. Hence, we conclude that the “expected learning” (SEP, 2011) can be achieved depending on specific Modelo strategies that are used. A proper discussion of our results requires their contextualization within state-of-the-art knowledge (TABOADA, 2003; CARRETERO, 2011). Studies on “previous knowledge” of History demonstrate the significance of hegemonic culture and social context (BARTON, 2010). In our case, family and school characteristics are fundamental factors. But gender and youth “subculture” define each student former biases or “representations” (DALONGEVILLE, 2003), confronting school’s Historiography. Studies on the evolution of historical thinking are not conclusive 6 (SHEMILT, 2011). They are definitive, however, about the insufficiency of the Piaget paradigm and of current social constructivist and “situational cognition” postulates. Hence, there is a need for a “new educational paradigm for History,” within which Educação Histórica, “literacy” and Rüsen’s “Didáctica de la Historia” already form a part of. Positivism (a chronology of “facts”) and teleology (ends and values) coexist within schools’ historiography without any validation criteria or procedures 5 Studentinterview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaRC4Ue7Dow 6 “The relationship between substantive content in the history and the development of children´s second- order structural concepts is unclear, and nosystematic work has yet appeared to shed any light on it.” (LEE; ASHBY; DICKINSON, 1993,p. 4).
• 15.
  15 (GERGEN, 1998). Thisis why we adopt “secondary concepts” as a History methodology (MOREIRA, 2009). But our Modelo considers “historical time” not only as “conceptual time” (relevance, evidence, change, causality) but also as a functional conjunction with “perceived time” (empathy, narrative). We teach conceptual time using a secondary level problem, a previous organizer such as an outline or a text, and an inferential answer based on evidence. We use sensitive and practical interaction with sources to teach perceived time, looking for the integration of both learning processes in the functional interaction (transfer). These three learning processes are cognitively conditioned, and this is why its evaluation should be integral and not separated, authentic and not only declarative, and based on special cases that are not standardized7 (DÍAZ BARRIGA; HERNÁNDEZ, 2013). Progression is cultural and subjective, focused on each individual and the group. Even though evaluation is complex, it is not impossible. The answer to the secondary level problem, which is specifically oral given the writing limitations, is possible to be evaluated as an argument–different from common sense or from representation (WELLS; MEJÍA, 2005: 9). Cooper and Dilek (2007) provided a similar evaluation in a review, and so did Breakstone, Smith and Wineburg (2012), and Chapman (2009), although in a more complex way. In practice, regarding the sensitive, practical and functional knowledge, 7 The quantification is under debate: “Conclusions of this research (Valledor) are overwhelming: a poor young man knows half about historical time than a well-off individual. Likewise, through the Análisis Multivariado de la Varianza, it was established that language abilities represent the most consistent explanatory factor to explain the differences between understanding historical time among students. Such results absolutely agree with specialized literature.” (HENRÍQUEZ, 2011: 22). “However, the literature reviewed demonstrates that there is no agreed way of quantifying historical literacy. Therefore, one can argue that it is possible to get a qualitative description of historical literacy without attempting to quantify it.” (MAPOSA, WASSERMANN, 2009,p. 59).
• 16.
  16 the teacher “evaluates”the evolution of each student and of the group as a whole. Some qualitative tools exist to evaluate such as “rubrics,” but they are not used very much. Some evidence of this functional learning is registered in the final report or Master’s thesis mentioned before as “motivation” achievements. Beyond academic conferences, the teaching of History is a social practice (SEIXAS, 2012). In Mexico, the dissociation between teaching and research in elementary school is deep. Such a situation affects the development of “teaching philosophies,” the “teaching-learning process” and schools’ syllabi and contents. The proposals lack the necessary fundaments and they are usually not easily applicable (TABOADA, 2003). Professor Joaquín García Andrés (8) emphasizes the importance of “motivation.” His 2005 study takes problems seen inside the classroom, and designs and applies educational proposals to solve these problems. If these are successful, he applies them in a different new context for validation. This is a kind of applied research that allows acting within the reality of the school setting. In addition, this approach opens the door to new focuses about teaching. Time at school (ZAMBONI; FERREIRA, 2009) is a “normalizing” time for individuals, both for teachers and for students. It is regulated through written norms and definitions from the discipline of Education. The classroom routine (cronos) that is imposed to each individual, which he or she adapts or rejects, is opposed to self learning time (kairós). The teacher has authority to conduct the activities, punish infractions and “grade” the learning. At the same time, he or she is tied to regulation and the surveillance of authorities, who also need to report to
• 17.
  17 their superiors. Theteacher ends up being a victim of this routine as well, finally “burning out.” Mexico is now awaiting a new education reform, and in such a tense tumultuous process, teachers face radical changes. It is both a crisis and an opportunity. Teacher García Andrés’ career, and that of many others, is valuable now. Their experience remind us of Max van Manem’s ideas about the pedagogic “touch” and caring about the student. Without the conjunction between Educación Histórica and these teachers, “teaching communities” will never appear, and these inevitably create the needed knowledge for our uncertain and risky times (CAMPILLO, 2009). References ANGUERA, C.; SANTISTEBAN, A. El concepto de futuro en la enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales y su influencia en la participación democrática. In: ______. Educar para la participación ciudadana en la enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales. I. España: AUPDCS. 2012 ASENSIO, M.; CARRETERO, M.; POZO, J. I. La enseñanza del tiempo histórico. In: CARRETERO, M.; POZO, J. I.; ASENSIO, M. (Org.). (1997). La enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales. Madrid: Visor. 1989. BARCA, Isabel. Ideias chave para a educação histórica: uma busca de (inter)identidades. História Revista, Goiânia, v. 17, n. 1. 2012. BARTON, Keith C. Investigación sobre las ideas de los estudiantes acerca de la historia. Enseñanza de las ciencias sociales, 9. 2010. BREAKSTONE, J.; SMITH, M.; WINEBURG, S. Beyond the Bubble: New History/Social Studies Assessments for the Common Core. Stanford University. 2012. CAINELLI, M. SCHMIDT, M. A. Desafios teóricos e epistemológicos na pesquisa em educação histórica. Antítesis, v. 5, n. 10. 2012. CAMPILLO, A. Historia y Ciencias Sociales: de la Ilustración a la Globalización. In: ______. La Historia desde fuera. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. 2009. CARRETERO, M. Comprensión y aprendizaje de la historia. En Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la Historia en la Educación Básica.
• 18.
  18 México: SEP. 2011. ______;CASTORINA, J.; LEVINAS, L. (In press). Conceptual change and historical narratives about the nation. A theoretical and empirical approach. s/d. ______; LÓPEZ, C. Estudios cognitivos sobre el conocimiento histórico: aportaciones para la enseñanza y alfabetización histórica. Enseñanza de las ciencias sociales, 8. 2009. ______; POZO, J. I.; ASENSIO, M. (Org.). La enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales. Madrid: Visor. 1997. ______; Rosa, Alberto y González, María F. (Org.). Enseñanza de la historia y memoria colectiva. Bs. As.: Paidós. 2006. CERRI, L. F. Recortes e organizações de conteúdos históricos para a educação básica. Antíteses, v. 2, n. 3. 2009. CHAPMAN, A. Towards an Interpretations Heuristic?: A case study exploration of 16-19 year old students’ideas about explaining variations in historical accounts. Unpublished EdD Thesis, University of London. 2009. MARTINS, E. Memória e experiência vivida: a domesticação do tempo na história. Antíteses, vol. 1, n. 1. 2008. ______. História: consciência, pensamento, cultura, ensino. Educar em Revista, n. 42. 2011. COOPER, H.; DILEK, D. A Comparative Study on Primary Pupils’ Historical Questioning Processes in Turkey and England: Empathic, Critical and Creative Thinking. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, v. 2, n. 7, 2007. CUENCA LÓPEZ, J. M.; GIMÉNEZ, J. E. La caja genealógica: fuentes y tiempo histórico en Educación infantil. Una propuesta para trabajar con Maestros en formación inicial. Quaderns Digitals, 37. 2005. DALONGEVILLE, A. Noción y práctica de la situación problema en Historia. Enseñanza de las ciencias sociales, 2. Barcelona. 2003. DÍAZ BARRIGA, Frida. Una aportación a la didáctica de la historia. La enseñanza-aprendizaje de habilidades cognitivas en el bachillerato. Perfiles educativos, n. 82. 1998. ______. Enseñanza situada: Vínculo entre la escuela y la vida. México: McGraw. ______. PRAGA G.; TORAL, J.-A. La comprensión de la noción de tiempo histórico en estudiantes mexicanos de primaria y bachillerato. Cultura y Educación, v. 2, n. 20, p. 143-160. 2008. ______; ______; HERNÁNDEZ, G. Una mirada psicoeducativa al aprendizaje: qué sabemos y hacia dónde vamos. Sinéctica, n. 40. 2013. EGAN, K. Mentes educadas. Cultura, instrumentos cognitivos y formas de comprensión. España: Paidós. 2000.
• 19.
  19 ÉTHIER, M.-A.; DEMERS,S.; LEFRANÇOIS, D. Las investigaciones en didáctica sobre el desarrollo del pensamiento histórico en la enseñanza primaria. Una panorámica de la literatura publicada en francés e inglés desde el año 1990. Enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales, n. 9. 2010. GARCÍA ANDRÉS, J. Mecanismos motivadores en la enseñanza de la historia. Un modelo de aplicación con alumnos de E.S.O. Burgos. Tesis doctoral. 2005. GERGEN, K. J. Narrative, Moral Identity and Historical Consciousness: a Social Constructionist Account. In: STRAUB, J. (Org.). Identitat und historishces Bewusstsein. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. 1998. GONZÁLEZ, R. Aprendizaje Simbólico. Sinéctica, 26. 2005. GOSSELIN, V. Open to interpretation: mobilizing historical thinking in the museum. Thesis. University of British Columbia. 2011. HENRÍQUEZ VÁSQUEZ, R. Un balance provisional de la investigación en enseñanza y aprendizaje de la historia en Chile en los últimos 30 años. Clío & Asociados. La Historia Enseñada, 15. 2011. HEREDUC. Heritage in the classroom. A Practical Manual for Teachers. IBÁÑEZ, R. Cognición y comprensión. Una aproximación histórica y crítica al trabajo investigativo de Rolf Zwaan. Revista Signos, 40 (63). Chile: PUCV. 2007. LEE, P. Por que aprender História? Educar em Revista, 42. UFPR. 2011. ______; ASHBY, R.; DICKINSON, A. Progression in children´s ideas about History. Project CHATA. Liverpool: Paper. 1993. MAPOSA, MARSHALL; WASSERMANN, J. Conceptualising historical literacy – a review of the literature. Yesterday&Today, n. 4. 2009. MARTÍNEZ BORDA, R.; LACASA, P. Video game narratives: A “walk-through” of children’s popular culture and formal education. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, v. 1, n. 10, 2008. MORA, G.; PAZ, R. O. El Modelo de Educación Histórica. Experiencia de innovación para educación básica en México. Enseñanza de las ciencias Sociales, 11. 2012. MUÑOZ REYES, E.; PAGÈS, J. La relación pasado–presente en la enseñanza de la historia en la educación secundaria obligatoria catalana. Clío & Asociados, n. 16. 2012. NÚÑEZ R.; COOPERRIDER K.; WASSMANN J. Number Concepts without Number Lines in an Indigenous Group of Papua New Guinea. PLoS ONE, v. 4, n. 7, 2011. PAGÈS, J. Las competencias ciudadanas, una finalidad de la enseñanza de la Historia. En Miradas diversas a la enseñanza de la Historia. México: UPN. 2012. _____; SANTIESTEBAN, A. La enseñanza y el aprendizaje del tiempo histórico
• 20.
  20 en la educaciónprimaria. Cad. Cedes, 30, 82. 2010 PLÁ, S. Nuevas y viejas narraciones en la enseñanza de la Historia: los casos de México y España. Cuadernos México, n. 1. 2009. RAMOS, M. E. T. (Tradutora). MORA, G.; PAZ, R. O. O modelo da Educação Histórica: experiência de inovação para a educação básica. História & Ensino, 18, 1. 2012a. ______. A constituição do campo de pesquisa em ensino/aprendizagem histórica pela revista História & Ensino. História & Ensino, 18, 2. 2012b. RÜSEN, J. Didática da história: passado, presente e perspectivas a partir do caso alemão. Práxis Educativa, v. 1, n. 2. Ponta Grossa, PR. 2006. ______. Cultura: universalismo, relativismo ou o que mais? Tradução de Daniel Carlos Knoll. História & Ensino, v. 2, n. 18, 2012a. ______. Forming Historical Consciousness – Towards a Humanistic History Didactics. Antíteses, v. 5, n. 10. 2012b. SANTACANA, J.; LONCH, N. Manual de didáctica del objeto en el museo. España: Trea. 2012. ______; MARTÍN, C. (Org.). Manual de museografía interactiva. España: Trea. 2012. SANTISTEBAN, A. La formación en competencias de pensamiento histórico. Clío y Asociados, 14. Argentina. 2010. ______; PAGÈS, J. Enseñar y aprender el tiempo histórico”. In: ______. Didáctica del conocimiento del medio social y cultural en la educación primaria. Ciencias sociales para aprender, pensar y actuar. Madrid: Síntesis. 2011. SCHMIDT, M. A. Concepções de aprendizagem histórica presentes em propostas curriculares brasileiras. História Revista, v. 14, n. 1. 2009. ______. Hipóteses ontogenéticas relativas à consciência moral: possibilidades em consciência histórica de jovens brasileiros. Educar em Revista, n. 42. 2011. ______. Cultura histórica e cultura escolar: diálogos a partir da educação histórica. História Revista, Goiânia, v. 17, n. 1. 2012. SEIXAS, P. Historical Agency as a Problem for Researchers in History Education. Antítesis, v. 5, n. 10, 2012. SEP. Programas de estudio 2011. Guía para el Maestro. Educación Básica. Secundaria. Historia. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública. 2011. SHEMILT, D. The Gods of the Copybook Headings: Why Don’t We Learn from the Past? En The Future of the Past: Why history Education Matters. AHDR. 2011.
• 21.
  21 SIMCHOWITZ, C.-A. Teachinghistorical time, causation and empathy in the senior primary school: A theoretical and empirical study. Thesis. University of Natal. 1992. TABOADA, E. (Org.). Didáctica de las ciencias histórico-sociales. En Saberes científicos, humanísticos y tecnológicos: procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje. T. II. México: Consejo Mexicano de Investigación Educativa. 2003. VELÁZQUEZ REYES, L. M. Adolescentes en tiempos de oscuridad. Violencia social online en estudiantes de secundaria. México: Eikón. 2010. VOGLER, P.; MORROW V.; WOODHEAD, M. Conceptualising and measuring children’s time use: A technical review for YL. London. Young lives technical note n. 14. 2009. WELLS, G.; MEJÍA A. R. Hacia el diálogo en el salón de clases: enseñanza y aprendizaje por medio de la indagación. Sinéctica, n. 26. 2005. WILSCHUT, A. Canonical standars or orientational frames of reference? The cultural and the educational approach to the debate about standars in history teaching. In: ______. National History Standars. The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history. USA: Information Age Publishers. 2009. ______. A forgotten key concept? Time in teaching and learning History. 21st International Congress of Historical Sciences. Amsterdam. 2010. ZAMBONI, E.; OLIVEIRA, S. R. F. O espaço e o tempo no processo de ensinar e aprender história na sala de aula. História Revista, Goiânia, v. 14, n. 1, p. 115- 128, jan./jun. 2009.