at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169

Contents lists available

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Using inquiry-based instruction to encourage teachers’ historicalthinking at historic sites

Christine Baron*

Boston University, 2 Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

� Conducted pre-post think-aloud protocols at two historic sites.� Intervention was guided inquiry of documents drawn from site.� Protocols assessed against heuristics for historical thinking at historic sites.� Significant improvement in historical problem solving and broader curiosity about the site.� No correlation to experience or intervention structure suggests broad applicability.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 February 2012Received in revised form1 June 2013Accepted 24 June 2013

Keywords:History e study and teachingTeacher professional developmentMuseum educationInquiry-based instructionHistorical thinking

* Tel.: þ1 978 239 6265.E-mail address: Cbaron24@BU.edu.

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.008

a b s t r a c t

This study explores the use of inquiry-based instruction for constructing historical understanding inhistoric site-based teacher professional development programs. In an historic site-based professionaldevelopment workshop, fifteen teachers of grades 5 through 12 engaged in guided inquiry with docu-ments drawn from said historic site. Participants showed significantly increased curiosity about the siteand use of problem-solving strategies in interactions with the site and staff, but no improvement in otherelements related to historical thinking at historic sites. Improvements correlated to neither length ofteaching experience nor testing group characteristics, indicating broad applicability for improving his-toric site-based professional development programs.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The characteristics of effective teacher professional development(PD) programs are clear: They offer teachers opportunities to engagein inquiry-based, intensive disciplinary study, collaboration withcolleagues, and experimentation with and reflection on practice, viaactivities that are embedded within their specific professional con-texts (Borko, Jacobs, & Koeliner, 2010; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002;Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).

While history education utilizes the full range of inquiry-basedinstructional methods (Olson & Loucks-Horsley, 2000), examina-tion of historical sources, or “source work”, forms the foundationfor disciplinary inquiry and the development of historical thinkingskills, knowledge, and dispositions (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Van

All rights reserved.

Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008; VanSledright, 2010; Wineburg, 1991). Asrepositories for troves of source material, much of the disciplinaryPD1 opportunities for history teachers occur at or in partnershipwith museums and historic sites (Boyer, Fortney, & Watts, 2010;Fritzer & Kumar, 2002; Levstik, 2000; Ravitch, 2000). Yet, despitedecades of working with teachers, far too little research exists onthe effectiveness of historic sites’ role in improving teachers’disciplinary understandings and historical thinking, specifically, orin supporting effective elements of PD, more broadly. This studyseeks to address these gaps.

Part of the deficit in our understanding is due to the natureof the questions that drive research in museums. Alternatelydescribed as “informal” or “free choice” learning environments(Falk, 2004), museums seek to create situations in which visitorsdirect highly personalized investigations to satisfy their own curi-osity, rather than to meet an external standard (Csikszentmihalyi &

1 Professional Development.

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169158

Hermanson, 2001; Davis & Gardner, 2001). Accordingly, research inmuseums often focuses on attitudinal and affective changes orretrospective descriptions of the influence previous visits had onpersonal development, rather than on immediately measurablelearning outcomes (Gupta, Adams, Kisiel, & DeWitt, 2010; Kang,Anderson, & Wu, 2009; Peacock, 2006; Smithsonian Institution,2004). Evaluation of programs which, based on their instructionalmethodology, could provide measurable disciplinary outcomes,often describe site-specific results via action research or casestudies that speak neither to teacher preparation nor to general-izable program outcomes (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008;Hunner, 2001; Olivera & Jovana, 2010).

It is within these informal settings that goal-driven, outcome-based, formal teacher PD programs are set, but quantifiable pro-gram or methodological outcomes rarely appear in the professionalliterature onmuseum education. Instead, educators write effusivelyabout the many ways they can support teacher and studentlearning, emphasizing school-museum partnerships (Fortney &Sheppard, 2010; Simon, 2010), PD and outreach programs(McRainey & Moisan, 2009; Ragland & Woestman, 2009), museumlearning theory (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Falk, Dierking, & Foutz,2007), or “generic learning outcomes” (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007;Peacock, 2006). Most of the existing methodological studies onlearning in museums derive from science or art museums (e.g., Bell& Linn, 2000; Eberbach & Crowley, 2009; Housen, 2002; Luke,Stein, Foutz, & Adams, 2007; Yenawine, 1998), not history mu-seums or historic places, and the content learning and instructionalmethodologies are not directly transferable. While the informaleducation ethos of historic sites certainly embraces the “spirit” ofinquiry, there is little evidence to show how historic sites supportthe development of the processes and competencies necessary toeffectively engage in authentic inquiry either at the sites or viasubsequent classroom integration (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki &Grenier, 2008; Tseng, Tuan, & Chin, 2013).

The best data available about the role of historic sites in teacherPD programs comes from the Teaching American History (TAH)grant program. Operant from 2001 to 2012, the U.S. governmentfunded TAH grants required grantees to partner with museums,historic sites, or archivesdan acknowledgment of the importantrole historic sites could play in history teacher PD (Melendez,2008). While there was considerable variability within thesepartnerships, the broad outlines of TAH programs included struc-tures typical of PD programs found in nations that achieve highscores on international benchmarks such as PISA (Program for In-ternational Student Assessment), including intensive-content areastudies, collaboration with colleagues, and integration of studiesinto work environs (Wei et al., 2009). Yet, after a decade of workingin close concert with historic sites, program analysis revealed thatacross the spectrum of historic sitesdhistoric homes, museums,archives, heritage sites, battlefields, and othersdthere is noconsensus on how to best use them in formal teacher educationbeyondmere “enrichment” experiences (Humphrey et al., 2005; Tal& Steiner, 2006; Tal, Bamberger, & Morag, 2005; U.S. Department ofEducation [USDOE], 2011).

Within TAH programs, historic sites most often served as passive“field trip” destinations, rather than opportunities for active anal-ysis (Hall & Scott, 2007; Zeisler-Vralsted, 2003). Despite more thantwo decades of research outlining how to successfully incorporatefield trip programs into larger educational goalsdsuch as orientingstudents to the surroundings and learning agenda, clarifyinglearning objectives, planning pre- and post-visit materials thatintegrate the visit into larger curricular goals (DeWitt & Osborne,2007)dTAH programs modeled few of these recommendations.

When programs were situated at historic sites, visiting pro-fessors presented materials significantly more often than the site

staff (Humphrey et al., 2005), indicating that historic site staff mayhave hosted TAH programs, but were not deeply engaged in in-struction. When at the sites, visiting professors rarely engaged theteachers in source analysis, but rather in “show-and-tell” sessions(Long, 2006; Pesick & Weintraub, 2003) employing passiveinstructional methods, particularly lecture (Hall & Scott, 2007;Moyer, Onosko, Forcey, & Cobb, 2003; Pesick & Weintraub, 2003;Warren, 2007; Zeisler-Vralsted, 2003). Thus, the programs missedopportunities to have experts model inquiry with archival mate-rials, historic structures, or material culture for deep historicalexploration at these sites.

It is apparent that there are considerable missed opportunitiesfor encouraging inquiry and historical thinking at historic sites. Partof this has been due to the lack of clarity about what disciplinaryhistorical thinking at historic sites entails. The literature on his-torical thinking, starting with Wineburg’s 1991 study to the morerecent studies (e.g., De La Paz, 2005; Hynd-Shanahan, Holschuh, &Hubbard, 2004; Leinhardt & Young, 1996; Nokes, Dole, & Hacker,2007; Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995; Rouet, Favart, Britt, & Perfetti,1997; Tally & Goldenberg, 2005; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998;Wineburg, 1991, 1998; Yang, 2003, 2007) has centered on eitherunderstanding how historians work with traditional documents orassessing teachers’ and students’ use of multiple documents as themeans for encouraging historical thinking. However, no one hasconsidered what impact using these methods for inquiry-basedanalysis of archival document sets would have as a way to pre-pare individuals to analyze historic sites. The current study ad-dresses this gap as well.

1.1. Outline of current study

In the current study, the author followed 15 history teachers ingrades 5 through 12 through pre-post think-aloud tours of twohistoric sites in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Think-aloud tours aresimilar to think-aloud protocols in which subjects articulate theirthoughts related to a specified task (Ericsson & Simon,1984). In thisstudy, the participants toured the sites without the use of anyparticular interpretive media (pamphlets, notes, audio tours, etc.)and recorded their thoughts related to what they saw into hand-held voice recorders.

The two historic sites, the Old South Meeting House (OSMH) andthe Old North Church (ONC) are similar in their construction andmost significant time period (18th century), geography (Boston,Massachusetts, USA), and physical appearance (large, open, single-room, historic Protestant churches with box pews and overhanginggalleries). Participants conducted their think-aloud tour of theOSMHwith little prior preparation (reading the “history” section fromOSMH’s website). This was done to simulate theway teachers mighttypically encounter new historic sites. The think-aloud of theONC was conducted after participants engaged in a guided inquiry(Windschitl, 2003) exploration of archival document sets via an on-line hypermedia program entitled Tories, Timid, or True Blue? (TTTB).

These encounters were assessed for instances of historicalthinking against the author’s framework for assessing historicalthinking at historic sites (Baron, 2012). This framework wasdeveloped in a previous study in which the author replicatedWineburg’s 1991 study and followed historians through the OldNorth Church, Boston, to determine what constituted historicalthinking at historic sites. The framework presents five elements ofhistorical thinking historians use at historic sites:

- Origination: As historians attempt to understand the multi-plicity of choices, interested parties, and conditions involved inthe origins of the building, they pose the question: How did thisbuilding come to be in this place?

Table 1Teacher experience score point values.

Education S Years ofteaching

S Certification S

Bachelor’s 1 1e3 1 Other 1MA 2 4e6 2 Generalista/humanitiesb 2MAþ <30 3 7e10 3 Social studiesc 3MAþ 30 4 11e15 4 History 4

16e20 521e25 6

a Generalist licensure requires that teachers show proficiency in English, history,mathematics, and science on a state licensure exam, while holding a degree in one ofthose areas. This is usually used for teachers who teach upper-level elementary (5thgrade) or where 6th grade is not considered part of how a particular school districtdelineates middle school.

b Humanities licensure requires either a degree in English or history and certifiesteachers to teach in either or both content areas. This is primarily licensure formiddle school teachers.

c Social studies licensure is no longer offered in Massachusetts. While manyteachers with social studies licenses taught history classes, prior to its elimination,applicants could receive licensure with degrees in subjects such as political science,psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Holding social studies licensure indicatesthat a teacher received his or her initial certification under previous regulations andhas kept that licensure valid through continued professional development. This isdistinctly different from history licensure, which requires a degree in history, withwhich teachers may only teach history.

Table 2Teacher experience chart.

Teacher Educationallevel

Years ofteaching

Gradelevel

Subject areacertification

Experiencescore (out of 14)

Two-day groupdgroup average score 10.4T(2)1 Master’s 7e10 5 Generalist 7T(2)2 Master’s þ30 11e15 9e12 History 12T(2)3 Master’s <30 21e25 9e12 History/ELL 13T(2)4 Master’s <30 4e6 5 Special Needs 9T(2)5 Master’s <30 21e25 5 Special Needs 11

Three-day groupdgroup average score 8.8T(3)6 Bachelor’s 1e3 9e12 History 6T(3)7 Master’s 4e6 8 History 8T(3)8 Master’s <30 7e10 5 Social Studies 9T(3)9 Master’s 4e6 Ke12 Special Needs 5T(3)10 Master’s þ30 11e15 8 Social Studies 11T(3)11 Master’s þ30 21e25 9e12 History 14

Five-day groupdgroup average score 8T(5)12 Bachelor’s 4e6 8 History 7T(5)13 Master’s 4e6 9e12 History 8T(5)14 Master’s 1e3 9e12 History 7T(5)15 Master’s <30 16e20 6 Generalist 10

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169 159

- Intertectonality: To understand what is distinct about thebuilding that is the subject of analysis, historians situate thebuilding intertectonallydin a field of related buildingsdtodraw comparisons related to the form and function of thebuilding being studied. The question they ask is:How does whatthey do or did here compare with what has been done elsewhere?

- Stratification: Historians approach buildings as inherentlylayered artifacts. Accordingly, they sift through the multiplestrata of time evident within a single place to locate individuals,events, or building elements within their proper context. Thecentral question of stratification is: What are the multiple timeperiods evident in this building and what do they tell me about itshistory?

- Supposition: Using data gathered via the previous heuristics,historians pose hypotheses to explore the reasons behind theexistence of particular physical evidence, events, or phenom-ena. The question they ask is: Given the available evidence, myprior knowledge, and how I understand the world to work, whatplausible scenario or outcome could explain this feature orphenomenon?

- Empathetic insight: Historians use the data gathered via theprevious heuristics to consider the affective factors acting uponand within the historic agents related to the site. The questionthey ask is: Given the available evidence, my prior knowledge,and how I understand the world to work, how would the peoplewho occupied this space have responded (socially, emotionally,intellectually) to the space and the circumstances of the time?(Baron, 2012, p. 834)

What follows is a discussion of themultiplemeasures, materials,and methods of analysis used to discern the effectiveness of usinginquiry-based analysis of archival document sets for encouraginghistorical thinking at historic sites in a PD program setting. Theseinclude: an explicit exposition of the coding systems employed;quantitative and qualitative reporting of results by historicalthinking category; relationship between teacher experience andprogram outcomes; assessment of the integration of pedagogicalcontent knowledge into teacher-created materials; a description ofrelated findings and their implications; and finally, a discussion ofthese findings for employing this inquiry-based approach forstimulating historical thinking at historic sites and the role of thesemethods in teacher PD programs.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were recruited via fliers distributed through localPD networks. The 15 participant teachers taught in both public andprivate schools, in suburban and urban settings in grades 5 through12. As teachers attending PD programs are typically either un-compensated or receive a small stipend for their time, ONC pro-vided each participant with nominal compensation ($200), as wellas PD credentials for their participation. Though none chose to,participants had the right to withdraw from the study, but stillparticipate in the exploration of TTTB as a PD activity and receivethe credentials and stipend.

Due to complicated scheduling concerns, participants indicatedtheir top two preferences for group assignments. Accordingly,beyond their professional credentials, assignment was based onparticipant availability rather than any other specific attribute.

Given that teachers at different phases of their professionalcareers have different levels of preparation, experience, needs, andexpectations of PD (Day & Gu, 2007; Vermunt & Endedijk, 2011), itwas essential to denote the differences at the outset to determine if

prior training or experience had a significant effect on learningoutcomes. Accordingly, participants were assigned an “experiencescore” (S) based on their educational level, years of teaching, andcertification area (see Table 1). The maximum experience scorepossiblewas 14 (education plus years of teaching plus certification).

Once their experience scores were determined, participantswere assigned to one of three testing groups, with every effortmade to ensure relative comparability between the groups. Groupdistribution is shown in Table 2. The three groups and their inter-action with TTTB simulated normal use conditions: the field trip,the independent off-site user, and the seminar. The group charac-teristics were as follows:

- Two-day group, “the field trip”: Similar to how most in-dividuals and PD groups visit the site, this group’s experiencesimulated the typical field trip experienceda structured pro-gram (TTTB), followed by a tour of ONC.

Table 3Gender and ethnicity distribution.

Male Female African-American Non-HispanicCaucasian

Two-day group 2 3 1 4Three-day group 2 4 1 5Five-day group 3 1 0 4

Fig. 1. Interior of the old north church, view from Altar.

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169160

- Three-day group, “independent off-site user”: Mimicking theexperience of self-directed learners who use web-basedlearning tools as preparation for coming on site, members ofthe three-day group were trained using one TTTB module onsite at ONC and then sent home towork on the subsequent twomodules at their own pace. Upon their return to ONC, theytoured the church.

- Five-day group, “the seminar”: Akin to many PD or graduatecourses, the seminar group met for five consecutive Mondaysand encountered a different module during sessions 2 through4, and in session 5 toured ONC.

Despite different formats, all three test groups encounteredTTTB materials for approximately 3 h. Members of the differentgroups were aware that there were other groups of teachers, butwere unaware of the different characteristics of the groups. At nopoint did any of the individuals interact with anyone in any of theother groups.

Individual teachers are noted accordingly: The T indicates thatthey are teachers (as distinct from historians); the parentheticalnumber indicates which test group they were in, the two-day,three-day, or five-day groups; and the final number is assigned asan individual signifier. Therefore, T(2)4 indicates that teachernumber 4 is from the two-day group.

While gender and ethnicity were not considered factors forassignment, 7 participants were male and 8 were females; 2 wereAfrican-American and 13 were non-Hispanic Caucasian. Distribu-tion across groups is shown in Table 3.

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Tories, timid, or true blue (TTTB) interactionEach group encountered three online TTTB modulesdByles,

Pulling, and Humphriesdfor approximately one hour each, totalingthree hours of exposure. Each of the TTTB modules is comprised of18 archival documents, both primary and secondary sources,structured around “solving” a historical problem related to theimpact of the events of April 18, 1775, the evening of Paul Revere’sfamous ride, on members of the ONC’s congregation.2

Participants were paired with other group members and askedto discuss the problem, the documents, and their reasoning aloudso that they could be recorded. These sessions were recorded, butrecording problems resulted in incomplete data sets; therefore, theprocess in which participants encountered TTTB materials couldnot be fully considered.

2.2.2. Pre-post think-aloud tours of old south meeting house andold north church

One week prior to their work with TTTB, all three test groupsspent the first day of their sessions doing think-aloud tours of theOSMH. Following their interaction with TTTB, participants simi-larly recorded think-aloud tours at the ONC on the final day of

2 The full set of materials and instructions are available at http://www.oldnorth.com/schoolprograms/tories/index.htm.

their sessions. The purpose of these tours was to determine theeffect of using TTTB on historical thinking related to an historicsite (Figs. 1e4).

While the OSMH is slightly larger than the ONC, the most sig-nificant difference between the sites is the amount of interpretivemedia available for visitors. At the OSMH, the entire backwall of themeeting house contains interpretive panels and dioramas depictingthe nearly 300-year history of the site. Participants were given nospecific instructions to either engage or ignore the information. AtONC, a church with an active congregation, there was no inter-pretive media of any kind to inform visitors to the site, only on-site

Fig. 2. Interior view of the old south meeting house from center gallery.

Fig. 3. Exterior view of the old north church from Salem street entrance.

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169 161

guide staff who could answer questions or make short pre-sentations. Participants did not interact with the guide staff, nor didthey attend any guide presentations.

All three test groups proceeded through the historic sites ondifferent days, and there was no interaction between the groups.

Fig. 4. Exterior view of old south meeting house, Washington street entrance.

Using handheld digital voice recorders, participants conducted15-minute individual think-aloud tours of the site, in which theydescribed how they were interpreting what they saw. Each of thetours was transcribed verbatim and coded against the author’sframework.

As museums and historic sites are complex, social, highlydiscursive settings, discourse analysis has been used to great effectto evaluate the complexities of thinking and learning that occurswithin them (cf. Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knutson, 2003). Accordingly,discourse analysis was the primary method of analysis for thecurrent study.

2.2.3. Post-tour discussionsAfter participants individually toured the historic site, they

were gathered into their testing group for a post-tour discussionin which they had the opportunity to ask interpretive staffany questions they might have that were raised by their tours.These discussions were analyzed for both frequency and qualityof questions raised by participants. Quality of questions wasassessed against Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives(1965).

2.2.4. Pre-post lesson plansAfter the tours, participants wrote lesson plans indicating how

they would use the historic site in their classrooms, answering thefollowing questions:

1) How would you use the OSMH/ONC with the classes that youteach?

2) Sketch out a lesson plan (including an objective, brief discus-sion of procedures, and evaluation).

3) If you were to visit the OSMH/ONC, what would you have yourstudents do once there?

4) Howwould you use this information/activity once back in yourclassroom?

5) Is there other information that you would like to have to helpconstruct your lesson(s)?

The lesson plans were then evaluated against the followingcriteria:

1) What types of in-class activities were planned to prepare stu-dents for a visit?

2) What types of on-site activities were planned while studentsvisited the site?

3) Where do the lesson objectives/activities fall on Bloom’staxonomy?

4) Does the lesson planned encourage specific historical thinkingskills?

5) Does the lesson incorporate primary sources, multiple docu-ments, or emphasize interpretation?

6) What type of evaluation/integration into classroom activitiesoccur after site visit?

2.3. Coding

One of the challenges of evaluating historical thinking at his-toric sites was determining the best coding system for evaluatinghow participants handle the varied textual elements within thesites. For example, interpretive displays are largely text-based,with artifacts displayed and contextualized by the text. However,the sites are also replete with text-heavy memorial plaquesor other permanent features of the buildings, placed there inaccord with the building’s function (e.g., panel listing the TenCommandments in ONC).

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169162

The tours of the buildings, both OSMH and ONC, were codedusing this author’s framework designed specifically to address thepeculiarities related to buildings, rather than documents. As theplaques are vital to the function and purpose of the building as awhole, the text on the memorial plaques can be considered part ofthe building. Thus, participants’’ statements in relation tomemorialplaques were coded accordingly.

The OSMH/ONC tours were transcribed verbatim and the fullprotocols were coded according to the author’s framework. Ofinterest, though,was thedifference inboth thequalityandquantity ofthe speech and historical analysis the teachers presented; therefore, afurther layer of coding to permit quantitative discourse analysis wasdevised to represent the complexity evident in the utterances.

2.3.1. Historical utterances: chunks and piecesOf interest to this study was the difference in both the quality

of the speech offered, as well as in the quantity of utterancesindicating the different types of historical thinking. Initially,each whole historical-thinking utterance, comprised of multiplesingle thoughts, was calculated as a single instance of historicalthinking:

Example: The rectors’ plaque . . . It does appear that MatherByles left in 1775. So what did he do in thatdwhat is it, a year?He left in 1776 with the British in Halifax. What did he do in theyear that he was still in Boston when he was not rector of thechurch?

However, it became evident that this system of enumeration,where a statement comprised of 5 individual thoughts could beweighted the same as a statement with 20 individual thoughts,masked the level of complexity evident within the historical-thinking utterances. Therefore, the following dual codingscheme was devised to improve granularity (Chi, 1997): Prior tocoding the transcripts, each single thought was isolated anddesignated an utterance (a single thought¼ 1 utterance)(Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2001). Then, when codingthe transcript, when a historical-thinking utterance (comprisedof multiple single utterances) was detected, it was counted as asingle historical-thinking utterance. Then, the individual utter-ances within the historical-thinking utterance were talliedseparately. In other words, large “chunks” of historical thinkingwere broken down into smaller “pieces” to provide better insightinto the data. Thus, using the same historical-thinking utterance(chunk) as above, note the additional divisions of single utter-ances (pieces) in Table 4.

In this way, it is possible to see both the frequency andcomplexity of the historical thinking presented in the pre- andpost-TTTB sessions. What follows are the transcript division rulesfor delineating single thoughts out of the larger transcript andthe logic behind them. When it was not immediately clearwhether statements indicated single or multiple utterances, the

Table 4Detail of division of historical-thinking utterance.

Historical-thinkingutterance

Utterance

1 1 The rectors’ plaque.2 It does appear that Mather Byles

left in 1775.3 So what did he do in thatdwhat

is it, a year?4 He left in 1776 with the British in

Halifax.5 What did he do in the year that he was

still in Boston when he was not rectorof the church?

audio tapes of the tours were consulted to determine whereparticipants paused, thus indicating natural delineation of speech.

2.3.2. Division rules

(1) No Division: Statements that were not divided.a. Complete sentences

Complete sentences or independent clauses present assingle thoughts and were not divided.Example: The light pours in through tall windows.Example: Did they come here because it was expected of

them?b. “Like,” “you know,” “I mean”

Participants frequently used placeholders such as “like,”or “you know,” or “I mean” in their utterances. No sentencedivision at these statements.Example: You know, in you know, in so for, you know, in a

community like this, for 50, 70 whatever years or whateveryou know?

c. RepetitionsClosely occurring, exact repetitions are treated as one

utterance.Example: I guess they just have, I guess they just have,

um, pictures of the death masks.d. Dependent clauses

Dependent clauses remain linked to the sentence, areconsidered part of that sentence, and the sentence istreated as a single utterance.Example: So much of history is all about men, especially

when you get to revolutionary history here.Example: And just on a side note and somewhat irrelevant

to what we’re doing here, at the actual Mount Vernon, themold that they used to make a plaster bust of Washington,I’ve always learned that that was the most realistic to his.

e. Quotes/readings from interpretive panelsInstances of reading text from interpretive panels or pla-

ques as a whole are treated as a single thought, even ifmultiple sentences are read, as they do not directly consti-tute participants’ own thoughts. Commentary following orinterspersed within the reading of a text are treated asseparate utterances.Example: Wow.look at this letter from William Lloyd

Garrison to his son: “Too long our revolutionary fathers havebeen held up as the noblest of patriots and the truest friendsof liberty. They were too cowardly and too selfish to adhere tothe principles they laid down. And they entailed upon theirposterity as great a curse as could be inflicted.” That is prettyamazing. It’s not, uh, it’s not a sentiment that is oftenexpressed.Division:

1 Wow.

2 look at this letter from William Lloyd Garrison to his son:3 “Too long our revolutionary fathers have been held up as the

noblest of patriots and the truest friends of liberty. They weretoo cowardly and too selfish to adhere to the principles theylaid down. And they entailed upon their posterity as great acurse as could be inflicted.”

4 That is pretty amazing.5 It’s not, uh, it’s not a sentiment that is often expressed.

f. Single-word declarationsThroughout the tours, participants frequently made

single-word declarations such as, “Cool!” “Neat,” “Wow,” or,“Interesting.” These declarations were treated as singlethoughts.

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169 163

Example (following the reading of an interpretive panel):“Revere Pew . . . Paul Revere’s son, Joseph Warren Revere . . .still owned by his descendants . . .” Wow! Cool.Division:

1 “Revere Pew . . . Paul Revere’s son, Joseph Warren Revere . . . still owned by hisdescendants . . .”

2 Wow!3 Cool.

(2) Division: Statements that were divideda. Compound sentences

Compound sentences are treated as two separate utter-ances.Example: Why was that there and why was there was a

need for that?Division:

1 Why was that there2 and why was there was a need for that?

Example: I thought I heard it had something to dowith thesound, the way the sound reverberates when a preacher’spreaching from the pulpit, but we always thought it was kindof funny, because it looks like something that could probablycrush him if it broke . . .Division:

Table 5Pre- and post-TTTB historical utterances (chunks).

Pre-TTTB Tours (OSMH)Origin. Intertect. Stratif. Supp. Emp. Experience

ScoreT1 0 1 0 0 0 7T2 0 2 1 2 0 12T3 0 1 2 0 1 13T4 0 2 0 0 0 9T5 0 1 1 0 0 11T6 0 0 0 0 0 6T7 0 2 5 0 0 8T8 0 0 0 0 0 9T9 0 0 0 0 0 5T10 0 0 0 0 0 11

1 I thought I heard it had something to do with the sound, the way thesound reverberates when a preacher’s preaching from the pulpit

2 but we always thought it was kind of funny because it looks likesomething that could probably crush him if it broke . . .

b. FragmentsFragments are separated out and considered a single

thought. This determination was due, in part, to the fre-quencywithwhich fragments signaleda shift in thespeaker’sthinking and did not refer back to an original sentence.Example: Also wondering . when I’m looking at the

people walking in here . . . who sat . . . okay this is a place ofinterest in Boston, what it is to gain from it?Division:

T11 0 1 0 0 0 14T12 0 1 3 1 0 7T13 0 6 0 1 0 8T14 0 2 4 0 0 7T15 0 0 0 0 0 10Total 0 19 16 4 1

Post-TTTB Tours (ONC)Origin. Intertect. Stratif. Supp. Emp. Experience

ScoreT1 1 1 2 2 0 7T2 0 4 2 3 0 12T3 0 2 0 0 1 13T4 0 0 0 1 0 9T5 0 2 0 6 0 11T6 0 0 4 5 0 6T7 0 2 2 5 0 8T8 0 0 0 0 0 9T9 0 2 0 0 1 5T10 0 0 1 2 0 11T11 0 6 0 0 0 14

1 Also wondering2 when I’m looking at the people who walking in here3 who sat4 okay this is a place of interest in Boston,5 what it is to gain from it?

c. Abrupt shiftsOccasionally, participants will abruptly change the di-

rection of their commentary, making a statement, and thenmoving on to an entirely unrelated statement. These shiftscount as separate utterances:Example: I think that is definitely, well many historians

would probably look at it as an extension of Puritanicalviews that stretch back to the very beginning of the [OldSouth Meeting House].Division:

1 I think that is definitely,2 well many historians would probably look at it as an extension of

Puritanical views that stretch back to the very beginning of the [OldSouth Meeting House].

3. Results

The results compare utterances from the pre-test (OSMH) to thepost-test (ONC) tours for correlation between instances of historicalthinking and experience, testing group, and individual teacherresults. Pre-post test results were evaluated in both “chunks” and“pieces.”

3.1. Individual teacher resultsTeachers’ transcripts were divided according to the aforemen-

tioned rules. Table 5 is a tabulation of the historical-thinking ut-terances (chunks) from the pre-TTTB interpretations of OSMH,followed by the post-TTTB interpretation of ONC. In question iswhether there is any increase in historical-thinking utterances, andif so, whether it is statistically significant.

Using the data in Table 5, the null hypothesis that there is nodifference in the number of historical-thinking utterances betweenthe pre- and post-treatment data was tested: The null hypothesis isrejected with p< 0.001. The observed mean of differences betweenthe pre- and post-treatment data is �3.12. The 95% ConfidenceInterval for the mean difference in historical utterances is(�4.57, �1.66), indicating a statistically significant increase in thenumber of historical utterances (totaled over all five categories:Origination, Intertectonality, Stratification, Suppositions, Empa-thetic Insight and coded against this author’s model). The effectsize, based on the SD from the two means, is 1.10 (Cohen’s d).

In Table 6 is a tabulation of individual utterances (pieces) fromthe pre-TTTB interpretations of OSMH, followed by the post-TTTBinterpretation of Old North. In question again is whether there is

T12 0 1 2 2 0 7T13 0 4 3 6 0 8T14 0 3 1 2 3 7T15 0 0 0 0 0 10Total 1 27 17 34 5

Table 6Pre- and post-TTTB individual utterances (pieces).

Pre-TTTB Tours (OSMH) Out of total number of words (N¼ 1935)Origin. Intertect. Stratif. Supp. Emp. Experience

ScoreT1 0 3 0 0 0 7T2 0 11 11 24 0 12T3 0 30 32 0 9 13T4 0 3 0 0 0 9T5 0 16 43 0 0 11T6 0 0 0 0 0 6T7 0 21 47 0 0 8T8 0 0 0 0 0 9T9 0 0 0 0 0 5T10 0 0 0 0 0 11T11 0 8 0 0 0 14T12 0 4 31 0 0 7T13 0 72 0 16 0 8T14 0 26 27 0 0 7T15 0 0 0 0 0 10Total 0 194 148 40 9

Post-TTTB tours (ONC) out of total number of words (N¼ 2445)Origin. Intertect. Stratif. Supp. Emp. Experience

ScoreT1 16 7 21 7 0 7T2 0 95 16 13 0 12T3 0 29 0 0 46 13T4 0 0 0 7 0 9T5 0 12 6 30 0 11T6 0 0 22 24 0 6T7 0 24 6 36 0 8T8 0 0 0 0 0 9T9 0 20 0 0 4 5T10 0 0 19 8 0 11T11 0 43 0 0 0 14T12 0 8 15 9 0 7T13 0 67 31 39 0 8T14 0 47 10 12 100 7T15 0 0 0 11 0 10Total 16 352 146 196 150

Table 7Teacher intertectonal analysis at old south meeting house.

Similar, but different Most like OSMH Not alike at all

“looks like a courtroom” “Protestant-based” churches Catholic Churches“other churches with booths”

Mt. Vernon Old North ChurchLowell Mills (questioning

if they similarly requiredattendance)

“Typical colonial buildings”

“classic historical landmark”

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169164

any increase in historical-thinking utterances, and if so, whether itis significant.

According to the data in Table 6, the null hypothesis that there isno difference in the number of individual utterances between thepre- and post-treatment data is rejected with p< 0.01. Theobserved mean of differences between the pre- and post-treatmentdata is �28.4. The 95% Confidence Interval for the mean differencein individual utterances is (�47.74, �9.06) indicating a statisticallysignificant increase in the number of individual utterances (totaledover all five categories). The effect size, based on the SD from thetwo means, is 0.813 (Cohen’s d).

Thus, as indicated above, there was a statistically significantincrease in both the number of historical-thinking utterances(chunks) as well as the individual utterances (pieces).

3.1.1. Correlation between historical thinking and experience.As indicated in Table 2, the experience score for the two-day group(10.4) was slightly higher than both the three-day group (8.3) andthe five-day group (8). To determine if this disparity would haveany significant effect on the TTTB testing outcomes, the followingtests were calculated to determine if there was any correlationbetween experience and (a) the number of pre-treatment historicalutterances (totaled over all five categories: Origination, Inter-tectonality, Stratification, Suppositions, and Empathetic Insight);(b) the number of post-treatment historical utterances; (c) the totalnumber of historical utterances (preþ post); and (d) the differencesin the number post- and pre-treatment historical utterances(post� pre). None of these data turned out to be significantly

correlated with experience. Both the Pearson (parametric) andSpearman (non-parametric) correlation measures were calculated.

Accordingly, despite the difference in experience scores be-tween the groups, there was no significant correlation betweenexperience and historical thinking, thus mitigating concerns aboutthe disparity.

3.2. Discussion of results by historical thinking categories3.2.1. Origination. Discourse about originationdquestions aboutthe circumstances of the building’s originsdwas virtually absentfrom the teachers’ tours at both the OSMH and ONC. At the OSMH,across all three test groups, therewere no statements that indicatedan attempt to discern the origin of the building. At the Old North,despite starting outside, across the street, facing the building withthe 1723 cornerstone and Paul Revere Memorial Plaque, only threeteachers made any mention of the exterior or questioned what thedate might signify.

Part of this may have been due to time constraints: The teacherswere given 15 min to tour both sites. At ONC, many participantsused that time to seek out references and “search images” (Falk &Dierking, 2000, p. 118) related to individuals discussed within theTTTBmodules or reconfirmwhat they had seenwithin the program(e.g., seating chart). Additionally, the situations presented withinTTTB neither emphasize the origins of the Old North’s congrega-tion, nor its existence as a physical structure.

3.2.2. Intertectonality. In their post-TTTB session at the Old North,the instances of intertectonal analysis, making comparisons aboutand between buildings, increased from 19 total utterances (1.26 perperson) at OSMH to 27 total instances (1.8 per person) at Old North.However, when specific references to OSMH were removed fromthe calculations, the frequency of intertectonal analysis pre- andpost-TTTB were identical (19 at OSMH to 19 at ONC, or 1.26 to 1.26per person), thus calling into question whether those referenceswere the result of having been at OSMH in direct association withthis study, rather than spontaneous instances of intertectonality.

Similar to the historians’ attempt to situate the Old North Churchwithin the context of a similar set of buildings, teachers frequentlycited their personal houses of worship to indicate the similarities ordifferences with the buildings that they saw. However, beyond theirown houses of worship, there appeared to be a smaller visual cat-alog of buildings from which they drew their connections.

The intertectonal references made at the Old South MeetingHouse are shown in Table 7; those made at the Old North Churchare shown in Table 8.

While the teachers did not draw upon the same deep visualmemory of similar buildings from the time period as the historians,they did employ the intertectonality heuristic at both OSMH andONC. Where historians presented a series of as many as 5e7 build-ings among which to situate the Old North, the teachers would mostfrequently indicate a single building or historic site against which tocompare the OSMH or Old North.

Additionally, the language they use to describe these other sitesor buildings is not as precisely differentiated in terms of using the

Table 8Teacher intertectonal analysis at old north church.

Similar, but different Most like Old North Not alike at all

“the Jesus painting ismore Anglo-Saxonthan in other churches”

“Colonial style buildings” “Not like most otherchurches that don’thave ties to theRevolution”

Congregational Meetinghouse

“the panes, the columns,paneling, the pulpit”

“Thought it would bemore European”

“Very simplisticNew England Church”“That hanging structure atOSMH”

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169 165

names of artistic movements, architectural elements, or time pe-riods. Where, for example, the historians precisely described theOld North’s architectural elements in terms of “tripartite Georgiansymmetry,” or made connections to the Enlightenment or Anglicaninfluence on the architecture, the teachers seemed to have a far lessdifferentiated sense of the time period, or at least, the specific vo-cabulary to describe it.

3.2.3. Stratification. The teachers employed the stratification heu-ristic with approximately the same frequency at OSMH as at ONC,though, at both sites, the teachers relied upon the written mate-rials, as presented in either the interpretive panels at OSMH or thememorial plaques at ONC, to provide them with “the story,” ratherthan attempting to derive meaning from the buildings themselves.

Therewere three significant interpretive elements at OSMH thatshould have assisted the teachers in stratifying what theyencountered: First, a series of interpretive panels, arranged chro-nologically, provide the major elements of OSMH’s story, includingimages of the evolution of its physical plant. Second, there is atimeline running the entire length of the meeting house that in-dicates when major events at the Old South occurred alongsideother important events in American history (e.g., the Civil War.)Third, the building was under renovation during their tours, andinterpretive signs were posted at each work site indicating whatwas being done to the building and for what purpose. However,rather than stimulating analysis, the teachers would read a panel,sign, or the timeline and then move on to the next panel with littlemore discussion than noting that it was “interesting.”

Similarly, at the Old North, the teachers used the memorial pla-ques to provide clues to the larger story and then paused to considerthe information. The chief difference between ONC’s memorial pla-ques and the interpretive panels at OSMH is that the memorialplaques were installed ad hoc to memorialize specific individuals,from the mid-1800s to the present, and are part of the building’shistoric fabric rather than a coordinated attempt to interpret thebuilding. Thus, the stratifications rendered at ONC required a deeperread of the building itself, rather than just following the storyline.However, this neither encouraged nor discouraged instances ofstratification, relative to their experiences at OSMH.

3.2.4. Suppositions. For a supposition to rise to the level of histor-ical thinking it must contain four elements: (1) a connection to thephysical space; (2) discussion of specific historic agent(s); (3) ahypothesis; (4) connection to prior knowledge. For example:

T(2)5d“The steeple was restored in 1912 by the descendants ofPaul Revere.” Well that’sdnow that’s againdmakes me wonder ifhis descendants were involved in the preservation has somethingto do with why he gets all the credit.

1) Connection to the physical space: Revere Plaque on front ofChurch

2) Specific historic agent(s) Paul Revere; his descendants

3) A hypothesis:a. makes me wonder if his descendants were involved in the

preservation has something to do with why he gets all thecredit

4) Connection to specific prior historical knowledge (one of theTTTB Modules): The conflict between Pulling and Newmanfamilies about determining who gets credit for hanging thelanterns.

Following their TTTB experience, the teachers frequently beganto present hypotheticals, posing questions, often in connectionwith content from the TTTB documentation to try tomake meaningout of some part of the physical structure of the building.

Similar to historians, when the teachers were unable to drawupon prior knowledge to interpret the Old North and its story, theyturned to suppositions in an attempt to reconcile disparate ele-ments. Of all of the results, the most significant is the imbalance ofthe instances of suppositions before and after TTTB exposure: Meanfor individuals Pre 0.267 to Post 2.267.

Further, at ONC, there were an additional 14 separate instanceswhere the teachers clearly employed a problem-solving strategythat, though similar to supposition, missed one of the four ele-ments necessary to qualify as a supposition. The element mostfrequently absent was connection to prior historical knowledge.While these 14 statements do not rise to the level of the suppo-sition heuristic, they indicate a larger shift in the teachers’ per-ceptions of the material encountered at the Old North as “aproblem to be solved” (Fischer, 1971, p. xv). If taken with thestatements that do meet the criteria for supposition (14 problemsolving þ 34 suppositions¼ 48; average of 3.2 per teacher),teachers minimally viewed the information presented at ONC assomething they needed to wrestle with, which stands in markedcontrast to the relative passivity (2 instances total; 0.13 average) oftheir tours of the OSMH.

3.2.5. Empathetic insight. Only three of the teachers offered anyempathetic insight commentary, most of which occurred in thepost-TTTB session at Old North. As empathetic insight drawsheavily upon the ability to use prior knowledge to contextualize theexperiences of historic agents, the teachers’ ability to connect whatthey encountered at the Old North with the larger historical recordwas limited, thus hampering their ability to engage in empatheticinsight.

Only T(5)14 offered an extended discussion that synthesizedmuch of what had been presented in TTTB, presenting a macroanalysis of the congregation as an “actual living society” and “partof a very vibrant community,” layering in different historical agents,their actions and perspectives. This discussion was unique amongthe recordings, as it presented the only instance where a teacherstepped back and took in the building holistically, integratingmultiple aspects of TTTB, as opposed to a single instance orsegmented elements. One other teacher, T(2)3, presented empa-thetic insight statements in his tour of OSMH and ONC, butmade noexplicit content connections toTTTB. The third teacher, T(3)9, madea single reference to “the Humphries” family from TTTB whilestanding in the gallery next to their family seat, but then moved onto discuss other elements of the building.

3.3. Lesson plansFollowing their tours of both OSMH and ONC, the teachers

created lesson plans that asked them what they would do withstudents on site and how would they relate the visit back to theirclassroom work. Analysis of the lesson plans revealed TTTB had apositive effect on how teachers would present the Old North totheir students and integrate it into their classrooms.

Table 9Group 3 pre-tour questions.

Post-OSMH tour question session (elapsed time: 2:12) Post-ONC tour questions (elapsed time for full discussion: 10:57)

R: Do you have any questions? dIs that the lantern that was referred to in the plaque that Gerald Ford dedicated?T (3)1: I didn’t know a lot about OSMH at all before this,

which is pretty evident, so I’m pretty much goingcompletely from the dark.

dWhy are the pews are so much higher here than they are at OSMH?

R (to T(3)3): That is perfectly fine. Do you have any questions? dAll these windows are part of the original design?T(3)2: No, no questions.R: Okay.

dI was wondering, um, the bust of [George] Washington? In a church? Politics and religion?I couldn’t figure that out, why it was there? Why so prominent?

R: (to T(3)4): Do you have any questions?T(3)4: Nope.

dAs we’ve been looking at the story behind the Newman-Pulling [controversy], and yet there’sso much commemoration in this church of [Newman]. I’m assuming you will want to providesome counterpoint, because, you’re not going to eradicate that, the plaques, the kneelingcushions, you know?dI was just wondering what if there are any major changes, architecturally in the building?Because I picture it a certain way. I’m picturing the people that we case studied in their pewsor up in the balcony. I’m just curious if there are any major changes.dWhat are the flags? And are they all colonial flags?

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169166

At OSMH, the most frequently occurring type of lesson was a“scavenger hunt,” wherein students collect isolated facts aboutOSMH and its role in American history, or “journaled” about theirfeelings about being at the site. Lessons emphasized “informationgathering,” with little to no in-depth tie-in to regular curricularactivities. Ten of the 14 lesson plans followed this pattern. None ofthe 14 lessons indicated any use of primary sources or artifactanalysis, either before, during, or after their visit. All of the lessonobjectives were ranked as either knowledge or comprehensionagainst Bloom’s taxonomy.

These lessons stand in marked contrast with those written afterTTTB exposure. All 14 lessons indicated use of primary sources. Ofthose lessons, 11 make explicit mention of the use of TTTB modules.All of the lesson objectives were ranked as either analysis or evalu-ation against Bloom’s taxonomy. More significantly, they integratedthe visit more fully into their return to the classroom than at OSMH,describing strong, specific content links and instructional objectives.

3.4. Post-tour discussionsThe effect of the different interpretive modes (e.g., reading pre-

made interpretive materials versus construction of historical un-derstanding via use of document sets) appears most starkly in thepre-tour question-answer session.

Following their tour of the OSMH, the teachers had very fewquestions about what they had encountered either in the pre-reading, the exhibits, or the building proper. The three groupsspent on average 5:14 min asking the guide questions about OSMH.Conversely, the sessions following the ONC tour averaged12:02 min, and participants peppered the guide with questions,offered partial hypotheses on subjects ranging from inquiries aboutthe objects in the church to reconciling specific elements of thescenarios found within TTTB. Participants repeatedly asked ques-tions about the Old North considerably beyond the TTTB content.

For example, outlined in Table 9 is the entire question sessionsfor the 3-day group following their solo think-aloud tours of OSMH,

Table 10Instances of use of the word “wonder”.

Historians ONC only (average time 52:40)

Historian H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 Total

4 5 2 7 4 22

Teachers OSMH/ONC (average time 15 min.)

Teacher T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 Total

OSMH 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 1 4 2 22ONC 8 4 4 0 2 0 7 1 9 0 18 10 1 4 8 76

versus just the questions asked by that same group’s post-TTTB solo-think-aloud ONC Tour:

The difference between the tours at OSMH and ONC appear to bein the curiosity stimulated in the teachers by their experience withTTTB. The questions evident in the ONC tour indicate bothconnection to the content they encountered in TTTB and a sense oftrying to place what they know within the context of the buildingset before them. The comparatively flat experience with OSMHindicates a lack of stimulation of that same sense of curiosity.

3.5. WonderIn the course of analyzing the transcripts, beyond the strictures

of this author’s frameworks for historical thinking, an intriguingpattern of word usage appeared. Following their encounters withTTTB, teachers were significantly more likely to use the word“wonder,” as in, “I wonder,” or “I am wondering,” when touringONC than in their pre-TTTB tour at OSMH.

At the OSMH, more than half (12) of the 22 uses of the word“wonder” indicated navigational concerns, e.g., “I wonder if you canget up to the balcony easily”; the remaining 10 instances indicatednon-navigational expressions of curiosity. However, at ONC, therewere 76 occurrences, all of which were non-navigational expres-sions of curiosity, e.g., “‘Pew 30 for use of his Excellency the Governorand other Gentlemen.’ I wonder at what point they stopped deedingthe pews? At what point could your average Joe come in and just sitin church?” (Table 10)

A two-tailed t-test (assuming unequal variance) between thehistorians in the previous study (Baron, 2012) and the teachers atONC showed that there was no significant difference in their usageof “wonder.” However, a two-tailed paired t-test between theparticipants’ usage at OSMH (mean of 1.47 uses of “wonder”) versusparticipants’ usage at ONC (mean of 5.07 uses) showed a statisti-cally significant difference, p¼ 0.00985. While the use of the word“wonder” is not on its own a measure of historical thinking, itserves as an indicator of the overall increase in engagement andcuriosity about the ONC following TTTB exposure.

4. Discussion

As stated in at the outset of this paper, this study addressed theneed to assess specific methods for improving teachers’ disci-plinary understandings in PD programs set at historic places.Accordingly, 15 teachers from grades 5 through 12 participated ininquiry-based instruction using archival document sets drawn froman historic site. Participants’ pre-post think-aloud tours of twohistoric sites were analyzed against a framework for assessinghistorical thinking at historic sites. Similarly, pre-post teacher-

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169 167

created materials were assessed for improved complexity ofthought, use of primary sources, and integration of content mate-rials into classroom activities.

Consistent with the larger body of literature on the effectivenessof inquiry-based learning (Brand-Gruwel & Stadtler, 2010; Chinn &Malhotra, 2002; Feldman & Pirog, 2011; Hynd-Shanahan et al.,2004; Kuhn, 1993; Marusic & Slisko, 2012; Nokes et al., 2007; Rouetet al., 1997; Wiley & Voss, 1999) as a model for encouraging teacherlearning, the investigation of the document sets at the center of thisstudy had a positive effect on participants’ interaction with andcuriosity about the historic site. Further, post-exposure lesson plansrevealed greater complexity of thought, increased use of primarysources, and integration of site materials into classroom activities.These improvements were shown across all levels of teacherexperience and independent of the specific use condition (single-day field trip, independent off-site user, or multi-day seminar).Thus, the process of engaging in document-based source workincited curiosity about the related historic site, a necessary pre-cursor to historical thinking, but not historical thinking itself.

4.1. Integrating elements of effective professional development athistoric sites

Although there is broad consensus that high-quality PD providesteachers a community of learners within which to explore active,inquiry-based practice and opportunities to both model preferredinstructional strategies and experience them as learners prior toteaching (Borko et al., 2010; Knapp, 2003), there remains little sys-tematic evaluation of these elements, either in isolation or combi-nation (Knapp, 2003; Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2009).Accordingly, the current study is significant in that it serves as “ex-istence proof” (Borko, 2004, p. 5) for the effectiveness of sourceworkas instructional practice for use in historic site-based PD programs.

As none of the improvements significantly correlated to eitherexperience or testing group, this indicates broad possibilities forapplication, despite relatively short exposure. While there is sub-stantial agreement that single session workshops do not createsustained improvement in teacher learning or performance (Garetet al., 2001; Wilson & Berne, 1999), the one day “field trip” remainsa default model for professional development at historic sites.Rather than offering passive tours or lectures, historic site can usethe inquiry method outlined here to address two of the core fea-tures of effective PDdcontent focused, active-learning (Desimone,2009)dto support the larger goals of the PD program.

For historic sites, this study provides a critical model for not justimproving the overall PD experience, but improving the trans-ferability of the materials from the historic site into the teachers’professional practice. Beyond pure disciplinary learning, the dra-matic shift in the quality of lesson plans becomes a critical indicatorof change within the teachers’ professional domain (Clarke &Hollingsworth, 2002). By allowing teachers to experience apreferred instructional practice as a student, before having to teachit (Buczynski & Hansen, 2010; Knapp, 2003; Van Duzor, 2010), theparticipants were able to make meaningful connections betweenwhat they learned on-site with the needs of their particular class-rooms. Framing the inquiry into the document sets in terms of thechoices that historic agents made provided teachers a way into thestory of the historic site, modeled how to offer what they learned totheir students, and the materials to effectively enact that transfer.

4.2. Changing the expectations of professional development athistoric sites

When significant numbers of teachers report that professionaldevelopment merely reinforces what they are already doing, it is

little wonder that they are “lukewarm” about their PD experiences(Hill, 2009, p. 472; Hudson, McMahon, & Overstreet, 2000). It isessential that teacher educators employ methods and materialswith which teachers can fully engage and that they can enjoy, butalso effectively change perceptions and practice. Thus it is signifi-cant that the participants of this study repeatedly stated that theyenjoyed the experience of being at the ONC better than at OSMHbecause they felt a connection to it; that the effect of having topiece together the story for themselves caused them to approachONC in a more historian-like manner, in that what they encoun-tered was another documentary piece in an historical puzzle. Theseresults are consistent with previous studies in which participantswork with multiple documents to piece together historical under-standing (e.g., De La Paz, 2005; Hynd-Shanahan et al., 2004; Nokeset al., 2007; Tally & Goldenberg, 2005), but this is the first suchstudy in which the site of the PD was considered as part of thehistoric record and open to interpretation.

The greater reach of the curiosity engendered appears to be inhow providing an open-ended preparatory experience for theparticipants changed the teachers’ “entrance narrative” (Doering &Pekarik, 1996; Tsybulskaya & Camhi, 2009) and expectations of howthey were to work with an historic site. Comprised of the “funda-mental way that individuals construe and contemplate the world,what they know about a particular topic, and an amalgam of theirpersonal experiences, emotions, and memories” (1996, p. 20),Doering and Pekarik argue that the entrance narrative is the singlemost powerful determinant in shaping a museum visitor’s on-siteexperience.

Based on prior experiences with historic sites, the teachers hadpreconceptions about the materials they encountered, what wasexpected of them and what they expected of their site experiences.At the outset, the teachers came to OSMH with a sense that thedefinitive story would be told about the historic site. Similar toreading a textbook without footnotes or visible authors, theteachers’ “reading” of OSMH indicated a largely passive acceptanceof the material presented, with little questioning of the source orvalidity of the story (Paxton, 1997, 1999).

Conversely, when the teachers entered the Old North, after us-ing TTTB, their entrance narratives shifted. Their understanding ofand experience with the ONC was one of ongoing research and ofopen-ended questions. Accordingly, the teachers appeared muchmore open to questioning the authority of the historic site(Trofanenko, 2006). Thus, the documentary inquiry not onlychanged the instructional approach they chose for their ONC les-sons, but their expectations of the historic site and its accessibilityas an historic resource.

This is a critical operational understanding for those that wouldoffer PD programs at historic sites: Passive programs beget passivelearners. Mere proximity to historic places does not provide intel-lectual access to them. If a disciplinary, inquiry-based learningprogram like TTTB can change the “fundamentals” of how teachersencounter historic sitesdfrom enrichment to sites for active ana-lysisdit is well within the reach of every historic site to become atruly effective partner in teacher professional development.

5. Conclusion

For educators interested in working with teachers at historicsites, these results are significant. As schools and universitiesincreasingly partner with historic sites, it is critical to understandwhat programs used therein offer the most effective engagement atthe sites, but also ensure content integration once back in theclassroom. While use of multiple historical documents does notperfectly replicate historians’ thinking, it engenders greater curi-osity and engagement than static interpretive materials and tours.

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169168

This study models how disciplinary inquiry-based instruction canbe used at historic sites to encourage better integration of sitematerials back in the classroom. It also invites serious questionsabout what combination of historical materials and investigationswould be necessary to stimulate true historian-like historicalthinking at historic sites.

References

Baron, C. (2012). Understanding historical thinking at historic sites. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 104(3), 833e847.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good.Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing forlearning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8),797e817.

Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: classification of educa-tional goals, Vol. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping theterrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacherprofessional development. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), Thirdinternational encyclopedia of education, Vol. 7 (pp. 548e556). Amsterdam, TheNetherlands: Elsevier.

Boyer, J., Fortney, K., & Watts, S. (2010). The changing landscape of museum-provided professional development for teachers. In K. Fortney, & B. Sheppard(Eds.), An alliance of spirit: Museum and school partnerships (pp. 57e64).Washington, DC: AAM Press, American Association of Museums.

Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2010). Solving information-based problems:evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 175e179.

Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development onteacher practice: uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education,26(3), 599e607.

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practicalguide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271e315.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry inschools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education,86(2), 175e218.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professionalgrowth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947e967.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in museums:why does one want to learn? In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The educational role ofthe museum London: Routledge.

Davis, J., & Gardner, H. (2001). Open windows, open doors. In E. Hooper-Greenhill(Ed.), The educational role of the museum. London: Routledge.

Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professionallearning and development: sustaining commitment and effectiveness over acareer. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423e443.

De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategymastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139e156.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional devel-opment: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher,38(3), 181e199.

DeWitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2007). Supporting teachers on science focused school trips:towards an integrated framework of theory and practice. International Journal ofScience Education, 29(6), 685e710.

Doering, Z. D., & Pekarik, A. J. (1996). Questioning the entrance narrative. Journal ofMuseum Education, 21(3), 20e25.

Dudzinska-Przesmitzki, D., & Grenier, R. S. (2008). Nonformal and informal adultlearning in museums: a literature review. The Journal of Museum Education,33(1), 9e22.

Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: howchildren learn to observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research,79(1), 39e68.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Falk, J. H. (2004). The director’s cut: toward an improved understanding of learningfrom museums. Science Education, 88(SI), S83eS96.

Falk, J. H., &Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning frommuseums. Lanham,MD:AltaMira Press.Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., & Foutz, S. (2007). In principle, in practice: Museums as

learning institutions. New York: Atla Mira Press.Feldman, A., & Pirog, K. (2011). Authentic science research in elementary school

after-school science clubs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5),494e507.

Fischer, D. H. (1971). Historians’ fallacies: Toward a logic of historical thought. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fortney, K., & Sheppard, B. (Eds.). (2010). An alliance of spirit: Museum and schoolpartnerships. Washington, DC: AAM Press, American Association ofMuseums.

Fritzer, P., & Kumar, D. (2002). What do prospective elementary teachers knowabout American history? Journal of Social Studies Research, 26(1), 51e59.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). Whatmakes professional development effective? Results from a national sample ofteachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915e945.

Gupta, P., Adams, J., Kisiel, J., & Dewitt, J. (2010). Examining the complexitiesof school-museum partnerships. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5,685e699.

Hall, T. D., & Scott, R. (2007). Closing the gap between professors and teachers:“uncoverage” as model of PD for history teachers. The History Teacher, 40,257e263.

Hill, H. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7),470e476.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, and per-formance. London: Routledge.

Housen, A. (2002). Aesthetic thought, critical thinking and transfer. Arts andLearning Journal, 18(1), 99e132.

Hudson, S. B., McMahon, K. C., & Overstreet, C. M. (2000). The 2000 National Surveyof Science and Mathematics Education: Compendium of Tables: Funded by theNational Science Foundation.

Humphrey, D. C., Chang-Ross, C., Donnelly, M. B., Hersh, L., & Skolnik, H. (2005). Eval-uation of the teaching American history program. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

Hunner, J. (2001). Historic environment education: using nearby history in class-rooms and museums. Public Historian, 33(1), 33e43.

Hynd-Shanahan, C., Holschuh, J. P., & Hubbard, B. P. (2004). Thinking like a histo-rian: college students’ reading of multiple historical documents. Journal ofLiteracy Research, 36(2), 141e176.

Kang, C., Anderson, D., & Wu, X. (2009). Chinese perceptions of the interfacebetween school and museum education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5,665e684.

Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review ofResearch in Education, 27, 109e157.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning sci-entific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319e337.

Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: distance andexpertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 441e486.

Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.). (2003). Learning conversations inmuseums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Levstik, L. (2000). Articulating the silences: teachers’ and adolescents’ conception ofhistorical significance. In P. N. Stearns, P. Sexias, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.),Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives(pp. 284e305). New York: New York University Press.

Long, K. A. (2006). Reflections on TAH and the historian’s role: reciprocal exchangesand transformative contributions to history education. The History Teacher, 39,493e508.

Luke, J. J., Stein, J., Foutz, S., & Adams, M. (2007). Research to practice: testing a toolfor assessing critical thinking in art museum programs. Journal of MuseumEducation, 32(2), 123e135.

McRainey, L. D., & Moisan, H. (2009). Artifacts as inspiration: building connectionsbetween museum educators and classroom teachers. In R. Ragland, &K. Woestman (Eds.), The teaching American history project: Lessons for historyeducators and historians. New York: Routledge.

Marusic, M., & Slisko, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teachingphysics on the gain in students’ development of reasoning. International Journalof Science Education, 34(2), 301e326.

Melendez, M. L. (2008). Teaching American history. The Federalist, 2(19).Moyer, J., Onosko, J., Forcey, C., & Cobb, C. (2003). History in perspective (HIP): a

collaborative project between the University of New Hampshire, SAU #56, and13 other school districts. History Teacher, 36, 186e205.

Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Characteristics of universitystudents’ Inquiry in individual and computer-supported collaborative studyprocess. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European per-spectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the firstEuropean conference on CSCL (pp. 462e469). Maastricht, the Netherlands:Maastricht McLuhan Institute.

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to useheuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3),492e504.

Olivera, G., & Jovana, M. (2010). Intercultural dialogue in education: critical reflectionin the museum context. Odgojne ZnanostieEducational Sciences, 12(1), 151e165.

Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the national science educationstandards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press.

Paxton, R. J. (1997). ’Someonewith like a life wrote it’: the effects of a visible author onhigh school history students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 235e250.

Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: history textbooks and the students whoread them. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 315e339.

Peacock, A. (2006). Changing minds: The lasting impact of school trips, a study of thelong-term impact of sustained relationships between schools and the NationalTrust via the Guardianship scheme. London: National Trust for Places of HistoricInterest or Natural Beauty.

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning:Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pesick, S., & Weintraub, S. (2003). DeTocqueville’s ghost? Examining the struggle fordemocracy in America. History Teacher, 36, 231e251.

Ragland, R., & Woestman, K. (2009). The teaching American history project: Lessonsfor history educators and historians. New York: Routledge.

C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169 169

Ravitch, D. (2000). The educational background of history teachers. In P. N. Stearns,P. Sexias, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: Nationaland international perspectives (pp.143e155).NewYork:NewYorkUniversity Press.

Rouet, J., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multipledocuments in history: effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction,15(1), 85e106.

Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.Smithsonian Institution. (2004). The evaluation of museum education programs: A

national perspective. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy and Analysis.Tal, T., & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacheremuseum staff relationships: school

visits to the educational center of a science museum. Canadian Journal of ScienceMathematics and Technology Education, 6, 25e46.

Tal, T., Bamberger, Y., & Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural historymuseums in Israel: teachers’ roles. Science Education, 89, 920e935.

Tally, B., & Goldenberg, L. B. (2005). Fostering historical thinking with digitizedprimary sources. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 1e21.

Trofanenko, B. (2006). Interrupting the gaze: on reconsidering authority in themuseum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 49e65.

Tseng, C.-H., Tuan, H.-L., & Chin, C.-C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiryteaching: perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in ScienceEducation, 43(2), 809e825.

Tsybulskaya, D., & Camhi, J. (2009). Accessing and incorporating visitors’ entrancenarratives in guided museum tours. Curator, 52(1), 81e100.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Office of planning, evaluation and policydevelopment, policy and program studies service, teaching American historyevaluation: Final report. Washington, D.C.

Van Drie, J., & Van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: towards a framework foranalyzing students reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review,20(2), 87e110.

Van Duzor, A. G. (2010). Capitalizing on teacher expertise: motivations forcontemplating transfer from professional development to the classroom. Jour-nal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 363e374.

VanSledright, B. (2010). What does it mean to think historically.and how do youteach it? In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research and practice (pp.112e120) New York: Routledge.

VanSledright, B. A., & Kelly. (1998). Reading American history: the influence of usingmultiple sources on six fifth graders. Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 239e265.

Vermunt, J. D., & Endedijk,M. D. (2011). Patterns in teacher learning in different phasesof the professional career. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 294e302.

Warren, W. J. (2007). Closing the distance between authentic history pedagogy andeveryday classroom practice. History Teacher, 40, 249e255.

Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher devel-opment in the United States and abroad. School Redesign Network, National StaffDevelopment Council.

Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent: promising professionaldevelopment models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 207e212.

Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: tasksthat promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 91(2), 301e311.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Chapter 6: Teacher learning and the acquisition ofprofessional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary pro-fessional development, Vol. 24, pp. 173e209.

Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what caninvestigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroompractice? Science Education, 87(1), 112e143.

Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: an expert/expert study in theinterpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319e346.

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem-solving: a study of the cognitive-processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73e87.

Yang, S. C. (2003). Computer-mediated history learning: spanning three centuriesproject. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 299e318.

Yang, S. C. (2007). E-critical/thematic doing history project: integrating the criticalthinking approach with computer-mediated history learning. Computers inHuman Behavior, 23(5), 2095e2112.

Yenawine, P. (1998). Visual art and student-centered discussions. Theory Into Practice,37(4), 314.

Zeisler-Vralsted, D. (2003). The Wisconsin collaborative united states history pro-fessional development program. History Teacher, 36, 221e230.