fillpot.+historical+thinking+in+the+third+grade

8/11/2019 Fillpot.+Historical+thinking+in+the+third+grade

1/13

This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile]On: 27 September 2012, At: 08:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Social StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtss20

Historical Thinking in the Third GradeElise Fillpot

a

aUniversity of Iowa College of Education, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Version of record first published: 05 Jul 2012.

To cite this article:Elise Fillpot (2012): Historical Thinking in the Third Grade, The Social Studies, 103:5, 206-217

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2011.622318

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should

be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2011.622318http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtss20


2/13

The Social Studies(2012)103, 206217

Copyright CTaylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X online

DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2011.622318

Historical Thinking in the Third Grade

ELISE FILLPOTUniversity of Iowa College of Education, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

This article shares findings of how two third-grade children who have systematically studied history in grades K3 analyzed historicalsources on a topic about which they had no prior knowledge. In think-aloud interviews, the children analyzed written documents onthe 1887 Dawes Severalty Act. One of the children, who tested on the third-grade level for reading, demonstrated extensive use of thesourcing heuristic and analogical thinking to contextualizeand interpret the documents. Care and imagination seemed to facilitate thechilds deployment of historical thinking. Both children informed their judgments about the Dawes Act by referencing the evidence.These findings suggest that curriculum, rather than age, is the strongest limit on U.S. elementary students engagement in historical

thinking. The findings also provide evidence of gifted and talented ability in the specific domain of historical thinking and suggestthat analogical thinking deserves greater attention in our efforts to understand and teach dimensions of historical interpretation.

Keywords:analogical thinking, curriculum, historical interpretation, historical thinking

In 2001 Sam Wineburg published a compilation of his land-mark studies that delineated the processes historians use toread and analyze historic texts. Titled Historical Thinking:Charting the Future of Teaching the Past, the book chal-lenged history educators to help students develop histor-ical thinking skills so that they might recognize both theuniqueness of the past and the human perspectives withwhich all texts are imbued. The Bringing History Home1

K5 curriculum and professional development project be-gan the year thatHistorical Thinkingwas published. It hasproceeded on the assumption that if children systematicallystudy history as an interpretive, evidence-based disciplinethroughout the elementary grades, they can begin in theearliest school years to develop the historical skills thatWineburg identified. An external evaluation has yieldedevidence that supports the project assumption (Kearneyet al. 2007). As the Bringing History Home (BHH) creatorand principal investigator, however, I have sought more de-tailed pictures of student thinking than can be capturedin a pencil-and-paper assessment. Specifically, my questionhas been whether and how third-grade children can learn

and deploy the historical thinking heuristics that Wineburgidentified.

As part of my pursuit of this question, in May 2009I conducted a think-aloud interview with Jamie, a third-grade student in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. For the interview,

Address correspondence to Elise Fillpot, University of IowaCollege of Education, 1111 Downey Drive, Iowa City,IA 52240, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Jamie read and analyzed seventeen sources on a historytopic he had never previously encountered, the Dawes Sev-eralty Act of 1887. The Dawes Act reduced collective triballandholdings in the United States by making land allot-ments to individual tribal members and included a provi-sion to eventually grant citizenship to Native Americanswho received the allotments. At one point, as Jamie soughtto understand that Native Americans right to vote hasnt

always been recognized, he puzzled:Ok, now it feels like were on slavery and segregation be-cause . . . African American men could vote in 1870, sowhen were Native Americans getting to vote? Because thisis in 1887, some Native Americans must have voted afterthat but the African Americans didnt get to vote until 1965because. . .the poll taxes. . .well the voting right act thatwas made in 1965, which was by Johnson, that was exactly100 years after slavery. So how could you answer by that?You would have to research about it.

In quality and substance, this statement is similar tomany of the other musings Jamie verbalized as he soughtto make sense of documents on a topic in which he had nodirect background knowledge. At the time of the interview,Jamie read on a third-grade level, but he demonstratedconsiderable expertise in historical thinking and knowledgeof U.S. history. His expertise didnt magically accumulate;his school is part of the BHH project, which means thathe had studied history beginning in kindergarten. Whilehe had not formally studied Native American history, hisknowledge of other historical events and movements in thenineteenth century and his ability to interpret history textsenabled him to make meaning of sources on the Dawes


3/13

Historical Thinking in the Third Grade 207

Act. An exploration of the strategies he used to explorethis set of original sources may enhance our understandingof how children canengage in historical thinking when theirlearning has been systematically developed and supported.

Historical Thinking Skills

BHH began in 2001 and has been entirely funded by Teach-ing American History grants. The program focuses on aparadigm of history as an evidence-based, interpretive ex-ploration of the past. In BHH classrooms; this means thatchildren analyze original written and visual sources in tan-dem with several other processes that help them estab-lish geographic and chronological contexts for historicalevents (Fillpot 2009a). Sam Wineburgs (2001) argumentfor teaching students to actively read history sources de-scribes succinctlywhywe emphasize source analysis in ourproject: Language is not a garden tool for acting on inani-

mate objects but a medium for swaying minds and changingopinions, for rousing passions or allaying them . . .If stu-dents (do not understand this) they become easy marks forsnake-oil vendors of all persuasions (83).

Wineburgs research also identifies historical thinkingskills that inform what BHH is designed to prepare stu-dents to do with sources. By conducting think-aloud stud-ies in which he asked both novices and experts to vocalizetheir thoughts as they read historical texts, Wineburg iden-tified three strategies or heuristics history experts use tointerpret evidence. Insourcing, historians inventory a textsattributes to take into account how elements such as theauthor, date, and place of creation of a piece of evidence

influence how the evidence should be interpreted (Wineb-urg 1990). In contextualizing, historians consider how thehistoric context of a piece of evidence influences interpre-tation (Wineburg 1992). And in corroborating, historianscompare various pieces of evidence to better understandhow to most accurately interpret each (Wineburg 1997).

Student Ideas about History

British research provides a foundational piece of the his-tory learning picture by charting the shape of studentideas about history. Ultimately, the researchers character-ized ideas about history as levels of progression (whichcould perhaps be more accurately dubbedlevels of power)that range from simplistic misconceptions to complex un-derstandings (Lee and Ashby 2000; Lee et al. 1993; Lee2005).

For example, in the progression of ideas about historicevidence that Lee et al. identified (1993), the student ofhistory who reads evidence from the past at face value assimple fact has very little power to develop a defendableinterpretation of that evidence. In contrast, the student whounderstands that attributes of a piece of evidence shape

how the evidence should be read has much greater powerto accurately explain and understand it (Lee 2005). Thisinsight can inform how we develop skill in sourcing; itreminds us to explicitly teach that when we analyze textswe inventory and consider their attributes.

Other research findings tell us we need to attend to chil-

drens lack of power to accurately place events in a largertime context and to understand that change is often broadand amorphous, untraceable to a single individual or event(Barton and Levstik 2004; Levstik and Barton 1994; Leeet al. 1993). These challenges point to the need to immersechildren in studying historical themes, periods, and eras(Shemilt 2000). Such immersion may help students moreaccurately contextualize the historic figures and events theysubsequently encounter.

Historical Empathy

In this brief sketch of the foundational contours of histor-ical thinking, Ive saved empathy for last. It is an odd bird,empathy; a contested term that requires definition eachtime it is invoked. In history, empathy has typically butnot always been equated with what is more precisely calledperspective recognition. Whether perspective recognition isan ends or a means is contested, however, with a few re-searchers interpreting it to be a state of mind and manyothers considering it a process. O. L. Davis (2001) con-cludes that it is both, whereas Ashby and Lee (1987, 63)contend that it is a cognitive destination, that empathy inhistory is an achievement: it is where we get to when wehave successfully reconstructed other peoples beliefs, val-

ues, goals, and attendant feelings. . .

it is not to say that thepupil hasgone through any particular let alone special process. Christopher Portals view offers a seemingly con-tradictory vision of empathy as a means rather than anend, empathy is a way of thinking imaginatively whichneeds to be used in conjunction with other cognitive skillsin order to see significant human values in history (1987,89). Yet these researchers both seem to agree with Littlesbelief that empathy is an ephemeral part of the historiansimaginative process, a heuristic consisting of intuition andother feeling-based responses to evidence (1983).

In a review of their own and others research, Barton andLevstik (2004) weigh into the empathy realm by delineat-ing historical perspective recognition from what they callempathy as caring. They identify four ways in which his-tory inspires students to care. Among others, these formsof care include student motivation to study history and tomake moral judgments about historic events.

Wineburg (1992, 1994) contributed to the perspectiverecognition fray by identifying how good history readersinform their interpretation of historic evidence with knowl-edge of the specific time and place in which it was created.He called this contextualized thinking and classified itas a skill or heuristic. In his think-aloud study of how


4/13

208 Fillpot

two students in a graduate program for history teachersinterpreted selected texts by and about Abraham Lincoln,Wineburg (1992, 1994) discovered a significant differencein the power of their interpretations. Counterintuitively, theformer physics student engaged in a more nuanced read-ing of the evidence than did the former history student. By

taking into account the contexts in which Lincoln spoke orwrote, Ellen determined that it is difficult to draw a sim-ple determination about whether or not Lincoln was racistbased on hiswords. Sheconcluded that hiswords were thoseof a consummate politician, and so they tell us more abouthow Lincoln perceived his audiences values than about hisown beliefs. Ted, the history major, took Lincolns wordsat face value, ignored their contexts, and concluded he wasracist. What isnt evident is why the young man did notcontextualize the texts. Perhaps he had no awareness of theimportance of contextualized reading, or perhaps his pre-existing narrative of racism limited his ability to perceivemultiple dimensions of evidence. Whatever the cause, he

provides a strong example of the absence of contextualizedthinking.

Wineburgs study at face value may appear to be the an-tithesis of Portals conclusion that perspective taking is atleast partly an act of imagination. In his Reading of Lin-coln study (1992), he cites reason as the only weapon wepossess to combat problems that threaten the well-being ofthe world. And yet imagination and reason may not oc-cupy opposite sides of a divide. The prevalence of analogyin Ellens nuanced interpretations that are listed as exam-ples in the Lincoln study suggests that imagination is animportant tool in contextualizing texts, if we are willing toentertain the idea that drawing an analogy is partly an act

of imagination, of making a mental leap to summon howtwo disparate things are in some way conceptually relatedand alike.

Most adults probably consider imagination to be a skillcommanded by children. But what of historical analysis,perspective, and empathy? Can they also be the purviewof children? In 2009 I interviewed six third-grade childrento explore whether and how they used historical thinkingskills to engage with original sources. The rest of this articledescribes two of the childrens interviews in detail.

The Exploration Context

Mrs. Johnson, a third-grade regular classroom teacher ina midsized Iowa public school district, has been the leadteacher and mentor for Bringing History Home since theproject pilot began in 2001. Prior to her participation inBHH, Mrs. Johnson had no formal emphasis on socialstudies in her preservice or in-service professional devel-opment. Her excitement for teaching history using the fiveprocesses on which BHH lessons center was immediate,however, and she has since designed numerous adaptations,miniunits, and instructional models for the topics she has

taught in second and third grades. Mrs. Johnson has de-signed some of these activities in response to project needsfor a pilot or elaboration of classroom historical thinkingstrategies that were either truncated or not included in theoriginal BHH curriculum for pragmatic reasons.

Because we work with entire schools, very few teachers

in our project have formally studied history and most havenot encountered history as an evidence-based and interpre-tive discipline. In BHH we have accommodated this situa-tion by making compromise decisions about the extent towhich we embed explicit instruction on sourcing and con-necting evidence to accounts in professional developmentand the student curriculum (Fillpot 2009b). While the orig-inal project design included source citation activities, thesewere put on hold because of time shortages for professionaldevelopment and the teachers available time to teach his-tory during the school year. An event in the early spring of2009, however, made me aware that BHH teachers mightbe informally helping students develop sourcing habits.

At that time, two third-gradeteachersin the BHHprojectadministered a photo analysis assessment to their studentsthat centered on an image of African Americans workingin a cotton field. The citation on the assessment imagedated the photo in the 1890s. Several hundred high schoolstudents in the same geographic region as the third-gradeclasses had taken the assessment, and fewer than twenty de-termined that the people in the field were not slaves. In con-trast, two-thirds to three-fourths of the BHH third graders(fifteen of twenty students in one class and sixteen of twentystudents in the other) inferred that the people in the fieldwere sharecroppers. Because the children had studied thetransition from slavery to sharecropping, they almost cer-

tainly made their inference by sourcing (i.e., they used thedate on the photo citation and their prior knowledge todetermine how to contextualize the people in the image).The outcome of this assessment highlights the role of priorknowledge in forming defendable inferences. It also refutesfindings by those who have studied inferencing abilities ina curricular vacuum and consequently drawn age-basedconclusions about students abilities to draw accurate his-torical inferences. If we use errors reasearchers have madein drawing conclusions about age-related abilities to guidecurricular decisions, we may miss the opportunity to engageyoung children in studying history with integrity. The op-portunity should not be forsaken, because research tells usthere are many misconceptions in student ideas about thenature of history (Lee et al. 2005). By teaching history as anevidence-based, interpretive discipline from the beginning,we may avoid or correct childrens misconceptions fromtheir earliest years in school and develop students criticalthinking and analytic skills. As I conducted a lengthy ob-servation of Mrs. Johnsons third-grade class in the springof 2009, I continued to recognize evidence of fairly sophis-ticated student historical thinking. In addition to teach-ing the established BHH Industrialization unit during hersocial studies periods, Mrs. Johnson used reading sessions


5/13


to implement her new instructional model. The modelaligns sets of original historical sources with a trade bookto engage students in making predictions and inferences.In the other BHH unit activities, Mrs. Johnson read aloudtrade picture books, both historical fiction and nonfiction;students analyzed documents and photos individually and

in groups; the class added events and people to the timelineit had been constructing throughout the year; and the classplaced significant geographic locations on the U.S. map italso illustrated throughout the year. For the final synthesisproject, each child wrote a chapter book on industrializa-tion. Students with IEPs for writing were given the optionto dictate their chapters after they wrote an opening sen-tence for each one.

As I observed all the activities Mrs. Johnsons studentswere experiencing, I became more and more curious aboutthe childrens individual skills. In the course of the groupactivities and whole class discussions, students voiced strik-ingly insightful interpretations of sources. In their vocal

statements and their writing on KWL source analysisguides, I recognized students engaging in sourcing, con-textual thinking, and corroboration at various levels ofmastery. I began to wonder how the children would en-counter sources without the benefit of written guides andtheir peers comments.

Interview Methodology

In deciding how best to study whether, and possibly how,BHH students use the heuristics Wineburg identified whenthey encounter original historical sources, I chose to use

a think-aloud interview method. Think alouds provide thepossibility to glean the sorts of insights into the interme-diary processes of young childrens thought (Ericsson andSimon 1984) that Wineburg (2001) gleaned from focusedinterviews with individuals at the secondary and postsec-ondary levels. The vocalization of thought that is the hall-mark of a think aloud is perhaps even more critical instudies with children than in those with adults, becausewriting ability can severely limit young childrens abilitiesto express their thinking. I did not want writing ability tointerfere with the students expression of their thoughts asthey encountered a set of sources. I also did not want simplevocabulary questions or other diversions to derail the chil-drens explorations. By assuming the interviewers role in athink aloud, I would be able to interact with the children ona limited basis to help reveal their abilities and inclinations.

Ultimately, I conducted two sets of interviews. In thefirst interview, which will not be discussed in detail in thisarticle, students analyzed photographs related to a topicthey had studied in one of their history units. Six studentsfrom Mrs. Johnsons class participated in the interview; oneboy and one girl from each of three general groupings forreading ability: below grade level, on grade level, and abovegrade level. This group of six was drawn from a total class

of twenty-five students, of which three students achievedabove grade level in reading on a nationally standardizedtest, fourteen achieved on grade level, and eight achievedbelow grade level. In 200809, in the Iowa public schoolin which Mrs. Johnson teaches, 28 percent of the childrenwere enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program, which

serves as a proxy for socioeconomic status.When I began the interviews, I did not have plans for

a second study. The childrens performances on the inter-views, however, piqued my curiosity about their abilitieseven further. To what extent could they interpret evidenceon a topic that was not related to one they had previouslystudied? With time to the end of the school year runningout, I quickly designed a second think aloud to conductwith the two children who had displayed the most adepthistorical thinking on the first. The two students who par-ticipated in the second interview were Jamie [student namesare pseudonymous], a ten-year-old boy who tested on thethird-grade level for reading, and Tara, a nine-year-old girl

who tested above the third-grade level for reading. Neitherchild qualified for the schools academically gifted and tal-ented program. Throughout the Segregation and Industri-alization units, however, the two children had demonstratedexemplary intellectual engagement in the books, originalsources, and questions Mrs. Johnson posed.

The evidence set for the second interview centered onpurposes for and consequences of the Dawes Act of 1887,which divided NativeAmericanreservationsinto individualallotments. The sources consisted of:

Three sets of statistics, two in table format Seven statements advocating various aspects of Indian

policy that eventually were included in the Dawes Act,made by either private citizens and groups or govern-ment agency officials prior to the passage of the legisla-tion

Two statements by Euro-Americans opposed to theDawes Act made prior to its passage

One statement in opposition to privatization of reserva-tion land, made by the Seneca Tribe prior to passage ofthe Act

Two federal laws, the Dawes Act and earlier legislationthat ended the independent nation status of tribes withinterritories claimed by the United States

A statement by Theodore Roosevelt about the effects ofthe Act, made four years after its passage

A map visual illustrating Native land holdings as a per-cent of land in the contiguous United States in 1850,1865, 1880, and 1990.

To help the children read and comprehend the writtendocuments, I abridged and edited the texts syntax intosimpler language. Even so, I ended up reading a few of thepieces aloud for Jamie.

As the interviews progressed, I asked three primary ques-tions in the following order:


6/13

210 Fillpot

1. What was the Dawes Act?2. What was its purpose?3. Was the Act successful?

Because the children had experience with a think-aloud

protocol from the first interview and from reading com-prehension think alouds, we were able to dive right intothe evidence set with little direction on my part. I did nottell the children anything about the topic or nature of theevidence before we began, except that the written docu-ments had been revised to make them easier to read. Theinterviews unfolded in two stages. In the first stage, whichwas the lengthiest, the children analyzed the sources onea time. In the second stage, I posed the primary questionssequentially in the order listed above.

Jamies interview lasted a little over two hours. We tookone break for lunch and recess. Taras interview lasted ap-proximately forty-two minutes and included no breaks. The

lengths of the interviews were not predetermined but wereallowed to last as long as the children were engaged in an-alyzing the sources. The interviews were audio and video-taped and then transcribed from the audiotapes by a thirdparty.

To analyze the transcripts, I defined a statement as achilds vocalization that was uninterrupted by the inter-viewer speaking or providing a new piece of evidence foranalysis. The childrens statements were coded for align-ment with Wineburgs heuristics of sourcing, contextualiz-ing, and corroborating (2001) and with caring as broadlydefined by Barton and Levstik (2004). After an initial cod-ing, I reperformed the coding, compared the differences,

and in a third step reconciled the differences by recodingagain the statements for which there was disagreement inthe first andsecond codings. I ultimately used the categoriesthat emerged in the third step. (The validity of this analysiswould have been improved if the coding had also been con-ducted by one or more additional raters, but I do not workwith anyone who has the sort of operational knowledge ofthe categories that the coding required.)

For purposes of coding, I delineated sourcingas the ex-plicit vocalization of a document attribute, typically thedate of creation or author. I delineated contextualizationas references to historic events, figures, and concepts thatthe children summoned from their own prior knowledge asthey sought to construct meaning from the sources. Cor-roborationwas delineated as references to using more thanone source to inform an interpretation of the evidence.

During the coding process, some statements did not fitneatly into the categories in the existing frameworks. Orperhaps it would be more accurate to say that these state-ments were not specifically enough defined by any of theheuristics or tools. In considering the nature of these state-ments that seemed to require more specific delineation, Iidentified three categories that would convey their naturesin greater detail: clarifying basic comprehension of terms,

drawing analogies between historic events or themes, andmaking causal connections between historic events.

Interview Analysis

Sourcing

Twenty-two of Jamies statements included examples ofsourcing. From the very beginning of the interview, he at-tended to dates. His first statement in the interview, afterhe read aloud the first document, was:

Do I still read the years, cause I usually do. . .like what wewere doing last week about the Library of Congress, youhave to write where you got the pictures.

Later, after reading the Dawes Act itself, Jamie looked attwo other sources he had already read and mused,

This is the same year as this, 1887. This is in February8, 1887, this is from the 19s. It would help us to knowwhat day this was. I thought that was the 19s but its not,its reported of the board of the Indian Commissioners . . .if it was created in January maybe there was somethinggoing on that none of this tells us. Maybe the Indians didsomething that maybe the whites dont like or the whitesare just prejudice against them and taking their land for noreason.

By recognizing a gap in dates among the documentsmaybe there was something going on that none of thistells usJamie edged into sensing a need for rudimentarycorroboration, of finding information in other sources to

provide clarity, which we will explore more in a moment, Inthese examples, Jamie uses dates to situate the chronologyof events and ideas or perspectives that are implied in thedocuments he is reading. In some of his musings, however,he uses both dates and document authors to make sense ofwhat is going on:

. . .so we are going to buy pieces of the reservation for, well,for ourselves in 1876. The U.S. government annual reportfor 1876. U.S. government. Are the U.S. government buy-ing this?2

In a more advanced realm of sourcing, Jamie uses hisknowledge of the probable white ethnicity of government

officials in the nineteenth century to inform his understand-ing of their perspectives and motivations in the documentsthey wrote. After reading a poster advertising former reser-vation land for sale, Jamie puzzled over the men whosenames were listed at the bottom of the flier. Had they cho-sen their role in the land sales or were they doing the gov-ernments bidding?

So back to the question, Walter L. Fisher, is there an elec-tion for that . . . does he ask the president before he doesthis or is it just his job? Thats a hard one [the document]even though it has a picture.


7/13


In another instance, Jamie wonders not just about thevalues of individuals in the government, but about whitesociety as a whole:

maybe we are trying to close down the reservations so theydont have anywhere else to go and they would just haveto come to us and we would, I dont know if we would

treat them equal because its in 1881 and right after slav-ery and this is segregation but native Americans werentsegregation . . .

The latter statement reveals Jamies prior knowledge ofsegregation and draws us further into the overlapping ter-ritories of sourcing and contextualization, where sourcingbecomes a more nuanced tool because the source attributeitself is contextualized. The coding count for the sourcingstatements may be low when we consider this overlap withcontextualization, as well, for in various instances Jamieresponded to a piece of evidence by describing somethingrelated either to a documents time or to the authors per-

spective but did not actually repeat aloud the evidence at-tribute and so I did not code it as sourcing.

Contextualizing

Contextualized thinking is evident in eighteen of Jamiesstatements. He used contextualization in some instances toanchor his sense of the time in which the documents werecreated and at other times seemingly to enhance his com-prehension of the material in the evidence. In an exam-ple of simple contextualizing, Jamie intersperses his ownknowledge as he reads aloud a document, voicing his owncomprehension checks as he proceeds:

Indians should wear civilized clothes, farm, live in houses,ride in Studebaker wagonsarent those the pioneers?send their children to school, drink whiskeyisnt thatlike a bad drink?

In trying to make sense of the connection between citi-zenship for tribal members and the right to vote, however,he displays a more sophisticated engagement in contextu-alizing, one in which he is seeking to understand not onlythewhatsof voting but the historic whys.

Jamie: Ok, now it feels like were on slavery and segregationbecause slavery ended in 1865 and African American men

could vote in 1870 so when were Native American, becausethis is in here February, well, 1887 so Native Americansmust have voted after African Americans. But did NativeAmericans have to pay taxes to vote until 1965 because,really, I dont know that.

Interviewer: Poll taxes?

Jamie: Yeah the poll taxes.

Interviewer: How could we find that out?

Jamie: Wellthe voting actright that was made in 1965 whichby Johnson that was exactly 100 years after slavery. So how

could you get your answer by that. You would have toresearch by it, what kind of research would you have to useby it, would you have to use the internet or would you haveto use your schema. I probably should know this becausewe done the segregation and slavery unit for a really longtime. We didnt do much on poll taxes we just read 3 booksabout it, I dont know for sure, on the internet probably.

Interviewer: On the internet absolutely and then whatwould our search terms be?

Jamie: Key search word is poll taxes . . .We could type inpoll taxes and if it doesnt show up poll taxes, laws, if thatdoesnt show up, poll taxes, it would have to be somethingwith poll taxes. When did poll taxes end because I know itstarted in 1870 probably did go on until 1965.

Corroborating

These musings demonstrate not only overlap betweensourcing and contextualization they are an example of

Jamies inclination toward rudimentary corroboration aswell. As he circles around the question of Native votingrights, he voices a desire to clarify his understanding withresearch from additional sources and his sense that read-ing just three books on a topic is not adequate to informhis historical knowledge. This wish for additional evidenceto determine a date is not corroboration in the sense thatan expert reader compares multiple pieces of evidence todetermine how to interpret one. As an invocation of thepower of multiple sources, however, I perceive that it is on acontinuum toward developing that skill. Fifteen of Jamiesstatements included references to corroboration, and a fewof these suggest he has more than an emergent grasp of

the importance and uses of corroboration. As he ponderedthe purpose of the Dawes Act, he referenced the maps thatillustrated the changes in land holdings and put them intoplay with the legislation itself:

I think its more land by reading this because this littleparagraph righthere after the tribe members received theirland pieces there may be extra land left over and sold tonon-Indiansnon-Indians are whites which in 1887 thisis what year was this in, close to this, Indians didnt haveas much land as the whites do. Its pretty much the halfwaymark on the US so they get more than half because of thehalf way mark plus there is a little areas that the whiteshave in between so you can tell by that and this because in1865 this law hasnt came yet but just imaginehere is an1880 picture, this is 1887, here is the half way mark againand they get half for sure. And look at all this through here.Indians only had like one-fourth of it and then if you looklike another 100 yrs later they dont even have a 4th of that.

As the examples above illustrate, its rarely a straightfor-ward process to isolate historical analysis skills from oneanother when they appear in a complex meaning-makingdeliberation. Complicating the somewhat Quixotian taskof isolating the skills for identification, one of Jamiesapproaches to interpreting the sources didnt seem to fit


8/13

212 Fillpot

comfortably in the original coding categories. The ap-proach, constructing analogies, seemed to facilitate Jamiesbasic comprehension, contextualization, and sourcing bybringing his prior knowledge to bear on newly encounteredhistoric elements.

Analogical thinking

Analogy is byno means new to theworld of history teachingandlearning. In 1987 Peter Rogersargued that the study ofhistory provides us, inter alia, with a stock of repertoire. . .of analogieswhich togetherconstitute a framework of refer-ence, a way of looking. . . (14). Analogical thinking hasnot, however, received much attention, and as Ian Myson(2006) of Great Britain observes, little work has been doneon using analogies in history classrooms. Because analogywas not on my research radar until it surfaced in the in-terviews, I was surprised and particularly intrigued by howextensively and effectively Jamie used it to facilitate both

simple and critical engagement with the sources. Fifteen ofhis statements on the Dawes Act interview included usesof analogy. Sometimes he put analogy to use in the serviceof simple vocabulary comprehension:

The difference between barbarians and a civilizedpeople isthe difference between a herd and an individual. Where ev-eryone owns everything together saving and competingIknow what competing means since I like baseball. Its likeone teamversus anotherthey have no motive or reward.

Sometimes, simple vocabulary comprehension morphedinto lengthy connections that ultimately enabled him to

recognize historic perspectives:

Jamie: We need laws that make Indians adopt the ways ofnon-Indians. What are they saying, adopt?

Interviewer: It means to take them up, to sort of make ityour own.

Jamie: Like when you adopt children, is that what they arekind of using? . . . So the non-Indians wanted the Indians tobe like them but they cant do that because the Indiansdoyou know what Amish people areok we saw some people,last weekend, maybe, I didnt know for sure because I hadnever saw Amish people before, we were on the road and Itold my dad I feel sorry for those people and he said why doyou feel sorry for themI am like well Dad they dont haveas much as stuff as I do. And he said thats how they livethey are happy that way they live in nature they grow theirown crops and stuff because we were going down the roadbecause we saw this family walking a boy with bare feetand there was a mom and we saw a young boy riding downthe street and we also saw these two women in the field. Itcomes down to this what I was saying earlier I wanted themto be like me I wanted them to live in the same houses, notthe same houses,

Interviewer: Same kinds of houses

Jamie: Yeah. My dad said they dont dothe same stuff as us,like I am a Catholic and their religion is Mennonite. Andsince not everybody lives the same as us., we are Catholicand we can look back in history and we are different fromJews like Jews dont believe Jesus is the son of God theystill think he is going to come but Catholics think Jesus isthe son of god, but the Indians dont really want to be like

the non-Indians just like the Amish people dont want tobe like us. They like the way they live now.

Is it possible to read Jamies efforts to make sense ofwhite and Indian relations in the nineteenth century asanything less than a rich act of imagination: the act orpower of forming a mental image of something not present tothe senses? As he talked, my own mind filled with imagesof a young boy and his father driving together, of Amishchildren riding horses in the twenty-first century streets ofIowa, and even of a child at some moment encounteringthe reality that there exist spiritual faiths different than hisown. But this isnt only a story about barefoot children or

religious faiths; it is a story about Jamies awareness of hisown process of learning to respect foreignness when he seesit (VanSledright 2001). He did not make things up fancyfree and then assume he understood a perspective that isforeign to him, reducing it to something akin to his ownexperience. He is recognizing, not taking, the perspectivesof others, and this recognition is the direct result of Jamiebringing his imagination to bear, via analogy, on a historicdocument.

Analogy also helped Jamie grapple with causation andchange. Further along in the interview, as he considered thepurpose of the Dawes Act, he referenced several documentsand considered their implications:

On the next one lets see what it tells usIndians adoptthe ways of non-Indians and absorb them into the non-Indiansthe non-Indians want a law to make the Indianscome into their world instead of their own world. Its justlike the planets, its just like that we are on this planethere and they are this planet over there and they want tomake them come over here to make this world bigger theyprobably want this to be all non-native American land.

And at the conclusion of the interview, Jamie turned toanalogies to comprehend the enormity of the Native loss:

Jamie: This is kind of reminding me of WWII, when theJews were taken away. It reminds me of, the acres werelike the people

. . .

it reminds me of that because I knowso much about WWII . . . and the 8 million I rememberbecause I am reading a book Memories of Anne Frank. . .and I always think of that when I see millions when doingmath or when we say millions I always think of that because6 million people were taken away and only like not even 500survived. . .Anne Frank escaped to Switzerland and thenthe Neverlands (sic) and the Germans invaded it. . .I wishshe would have survived 2 more weeks because she died2 weeks before Russians took over. You know what waspretty sad was only Otto Frank survived. . .I dont knowhow long he survived after that. My dad would be so sad if


9/13


he lost all of us. He would be sad if we just got pneumoniaor something.

Interviewer: Ok, lets come back to this question, Jamie.Im afraid Im going to exhaust you. Lets finish up . . .Ican give you more things to study about the Holocaust andGermany for this summer if you like.

Jamie: Not the Holocaust, please.

Interviewer: It is very sad to study. It is very sad. It probablymakes your heart hurt.

Jamie: Uh huh.

Interviewer: Ok, so we have this has happened to Indianland. We have this map, we have this poster, we have thisquote from Teddy Roosevelt, so lets come back to thisquestion again. Was the Dawes Act successful?

Jamie: I think it was. Kind of looking atthis one. [He standsandpoints to pieces of evidence.] I think it was this one, too.I think it was these two, I mostly think.

Again in this excerpt, we find Jamie using analogicalthinking to comprehend the import of a concept in thedocuments he is exploring. In this case, analogy is accom-panied by a strong measure of sympathy as well. He seeksto comprehend the scale of the theft of Native Americanreservation lands by comparing it with statistics of humanloss by murder in the Holocaust, a loss about which he caresdeeply, partly because he has made a personal connectionto Anne Frank. It is interesting that he also expresses sym-pathy for Annes father, not because he identifies with himdirectly but because Jamie imagines how his own fatherwould feel if he lost his children. Just as he recognized the

otherness of the Indians and the Amish, Jamie seems torecognize an otherness of fathers.

This passage is striking for another reason as well. Intwelve statements during the interview, Jamie expressedcare that people have been harmed by prejudice-based poli-cies and actions. His discussion of the Holocaust and theFrank family is one of the longest interview passages thatseems to center on care. This in itself is perhaps not re-markable. What is remarkable is Jamies seamless shift fromengaging in empathic care to answering a question usingperspective recognition. To answer the question Was theDawes Act successful, Jamie did not use the Native per-spective with which he sympathized. He used the perspec-

tives of the people who advocated for passage of the Act,which meant that he assessed the Acts success according tothe purposes for which it was intended. This forms a vividcontrast with Taras reasoning when she responded to thequestion, Was the Act successful?:

Tara: No, I do not think by this that its successful, that itsgoing to work.

Interviewer: Tell me your thinking, why do you say that?

Tara: Smashing, the engine breaking up these tribes . . .Itssweeping apart all the friends and families and their tribes

and what if they didnt want to move, maybe? They have to,I think.

My question provided no criteria for judging the successof the Act, and so Tara was justified in basing her answeron her inference of how Native peoples would have feltabout the tribes being broken up. She also informed heranswer with available evidence, with Theodore Rooseveltscharacterization of the Dawes Acts effect on the tribes.Both childrens use of evidence to inform their conclusionsstands in contrast to Bartons findings (1997) that fourth-and fifth-grade students frequently responded to questionsabout the source of their information by saying, I justkinda know. Taras thinking did, however, suggest thatshe may engage in historical perspective recognition lessreflexively than does Jamie. Her answer complicates therole of care in perspective taking, for her affective responseto the consequence of the Dawes Act may have hinderedher from considering the original purposes of the Act as

criteria for determining its success.In other ways Taras Dawes Act interview was differentthan Jamies as well. Tara spoke a total of 1,081 words;Jamie spoke 7,003. While quantity is not an indicator ofthe quality of historical thought, in this case it is directlycorrelated. Taras engagement in the Dawes Act interviewwasnot only different from Jamies,butit wasalso markedlydifferent from her performance in the first interview whichis not discussed in detail in this article. In the first inter-view her statements were much longer and consistentlydemonstrated much more accomplished contextualizationefforts than did her statements in the Dawes Act interview.The statements she did make in the second interview were

typically in response to extensive interviewer scaffolding;she demonstrated greater difficulty engaging in or makingmeaning of the evidence set than did Jamie, contextualizingonly tentatively. Some possible reasons for this difference inher performance on the first and second interviews may bethat the first interview centered on images related to share-cropping, a topic with which she was quite familiar fromthe BHH curriculum. This familiarity may have enhancedTaras expertise and comfort level in making meaning ofthe sources. That possible explanation also points towarda major difference in the types of connections the two chil-dren made to contextualize the evidence sets in the secondinterview. Tara made direct causal connections between her

prior knowledge and the historic events in the Dawes Actdocument set, whereas Jamie made analogical connectionswith his prior knowledge. In her most powerful contextual-ization effort, Tara called on her knowledge of immigrationand industrialization to infer that increased immigrationcreated a growing demand for land, which was met by tak-ing Native land. A few documents later, Tara returned tothis connection:

Theyre getting rid of their extra land. Thats what this oneis . . . 1911 [reads date on the land sale flyer] . . . Well, Iknow that 1911 is when the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory


10/13

214 Fillpot

happened, that would be industrialization and child labor,so I think this kind of has to connect to industrializationsomehow.

While Jamie relied primarily on analogical connectionsto make meaning, Tara made direct causal and chronolog-ical connections. There are few statements in Taras inter-view that reveal engaged imagination.

The visual nature of the evidence Tara interpreted andcontextualized in the first interview versus the almost en-tirely written nature of the second interview set leads toanother interesting question. To what extent, if any, wereTaras interpretations in the first interview much more pow-erful than her interpretations in the second interview be-cause the evidence was visual rather than because she hadprior knowledge in sharecropping and not the Dawes Act?Perhaps counterintuitively, the less accomplished reader,Jamie, demonstrated greater power to analyze the writtendocuments in the second interview than did Tara, the more

advanced reader. Was this because he used his imaginationto draw analogies that enabled him to contextualize andinfer perspectives on topics he had not studied before? Theevidence suggests this is a very real possibility, especiallywhen we recognize that comparisons Jamie drew betweendisparate topics and time periods were not the only wayshe used analogy. His references to segregation were of-ten preceded with the classic signal for a similethe wordlikeas he used his understanding of systemic prejudicein Jim Crow America to recognize the role of prejudice inthe perspectives of the proponents of the Dawes Act.

Throughout the school year, Jamie had expressed intenseinterest in segregation history. He was always excited about

studying aspects of the topic, and, judging from his com-ments in classroom discussions and in the two interviews,he cared that African Americans have suffered systematicinjustice and discrimination. The extent to which he in-vokes analogies to a topic about which he cares suggestsa connection between analogy and care. The obvious con-nection in this instance is Jamies concern that our historyis rife with systematic injustice. A less obvious connectionbetween care and analogy may be that analogy is evidenceof student motivation to rigorously explore a topic. The ac-tivation of imagination to draw analogies suggests engage-ment that supersedes the level required to execute masterylearning activities such as rote memorization. Care, at least

as motivation to learn, is implied at the foundation of en-gagement in analogical thinking.

Implications for Instruction

The Dawes Act document set was a daunting one. When wetake inventory of the outcomes of the interviews, we findthat while Jamie was more successful in his efforts to ana-lyze sources on a history topic new to him, even the limitedengagement that Tara achieved is perhaps remarkable inlight of the difficulty of the task. Both childrens interviews

provide evidence that the Bringing History Home projecthelps children develop historical thinking skills. The diver-gences in the childrens performances, however, highlightareas to which we should attend more closely if we hopeto move students closer to Jamies level of engagement andskill in analyzing sources. Specifically, we turn to care and

analogy, elements that were prevalent in only Jamies inter-view and that seemed to enhance his power to deploy thethree historical thinking heuristics.

If care and analogy are constructive elements of histori-cal thinking, how should that affect instructional choices?On a third-grade level, lets first consider how these ele-ments affect sourcing. To develop this skill, we must firstteach children text attributes; that texts have authors, dates,andplaces that they were created, andthat categories of textexist, such as newspapers, letters, and laws. The next stepis to introduce Stop and Source (Martin and Wineburg2008), which is an alliterative phrase that reminds childrento always inventory the attributes of a piece of evidence or

book before reading the body of the text. Stop and Sourceis a good habit to develop, but knowing the identity or af-filiation of a texts creator is not useful information unlesswe understand that a creator has a perspective and that thecreator perspective should influence how we interpret theirtext. When Mrs. Johnson introduces sourcing to her thirdgraders, she uses care to help them grasp the concept ofauthorial perspective. Were she to introduce Lewis Hinesin a historical vacuum before her students studied child la-bor, the concept of a photographer using his craft to endthe practice might be meaningless. Because she introducesthe photographer after the children have begun studyingchild labor, they understand his concern that factory con-

ditions were often dangerous and unhealthy for children.In turn, they recognize that he was motivated to take spe-cific pictures to influence people to end child labor. In thisway, care and historical context help children develop anunderstanding of authorial perspective and move along acontinuum of expertise in sourcing.

Helping students develop skill in contextualization is ascaffolded process as well, but as the steps to develop sourc-ing expertise demonstrate, children develop some elementsof contextualization and sourcing in tandem. Contextual-ization cant be divorced from understandings of specificevents, figures, themes, and eras in history. It is the processof bringing those understandings to bear on new texts todevelop defendable interpretations. We develop childrensskills in contextualizing by immersing them in studyingevents, people, movements, etc., and situating these detailsin relation to large themes or eras in history (Barnes 2002;Bransford 2000). By situating individuals in their specifichistorical times, children may be more likely to recognizethe otherness of those times from their own. In third-grade classrooms, student motivation to engage in this im-mersion may be activated by fiction or nonfiction booksand/orby vivid original sources (Barton andLevstik 2004).By learning from the earliest grades that history is a way of


11/13


knowing that involves various and many texts, students arealso started along the continuum to corroborate claims ina single text with information from other texts.

Once children understand both specific events and orga-nizing concepts in a history topic, they may be empoweredand motivated to deploy them as analogies to contextualize

and understand new topics. Teachers can both model andencourage students to draw analogies with history topicsandthemes they have previously studied. Some BHHteach-ers reflexively reference the units their children have studiedin that year and in earlier grades, helping the children re-membertheirpriorlearningand useit to accelerate into newmaterial. Cross-fertilization between history and literacyactivities may provide additional tools to scaffold explicitinstruction in analogical thinking. Literacy metacognitiveactivities in which children are encouraged to make text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections (Keeneand Zimmerman 1997) may encourage students to developanalogical connections. Literacy visual organizers, Venn

diagrams especially, may scaffold student abilities to recog-nize the limits of particular analogies, which is an essentialdimension of accurate analogical thinking.

On a cautionary note, Taras default inclination to use herown definition of success, rather than the definition foundin the evidence, to determine the success of the Dawes Actaligns with other studies that have found we need to attendto helping students support their historic explanations withevidence (Barton and Levstik 1996; Lee et al. 1993). WhileTaras answer is defendable as a predication of the perspec-tive of NativeAmerican communities affectedby the DawesAct, it nonetheless fails to engage the question by using theterms of intent in the legislation itself. If we want students

to consider a particular perspective, Taras interview sug-gests we need to include criteriathat directs them to focuson a specific dimension of a historic event. For example, ifwe want to engage students in considering the relationshipbetween the goals and outcomes of the Dawes Act as theywere stated in a limited set of evidence, we might ask chil-dren to list the goals for the Dawes Act, the outcomes, andthen ask whether the goals matched the outcomes. We maythen ask students to consider the impact of the legislationon Native Americans and the morality or justice of theseoutcomes.

Implications for Further Study

This study focused on just two childrens performance ona think-aloud interview. As such, it offers detailed insightsinto their historical thinking. The purpose of the interviewwas not to capture the general state of third-grade histor-ical thinking in the United States but to capture some ofthe abilities and inclinations of children who have studieda specific, sequential history curriculum for several years.As a detailed exploratory, it delineates the contours of twothird-grade children deploying historical analysis and inter-pretive skills and provides an example of exemplary histor-

ical thinking by a third-grade child. While this child is quiteaccomplished in historical thinking, in other measures ofcognitive achievement he is average for his grade level. Thisdoes not mean we can generalize from his accomplishment;it means that reading and writing skills may profoundlyconfound efforts to assess historical thinking in individual

children. This has implications for further study, not theleast of which will be the difficulty of collecting data fromelementary schoolchildren that captures historical thinkingwith validity and in a sufficient quantity to meet standardsof statistical significance.

In a more positive vein, this study suggests a directionfor investigation that has been little explored in the schol-arship of history teaching and learning; the role of analogyin historical thinking. Are some children more than otherspredisposed to the sort of imaginative connection makingthat is analogical thinking? When used by students, is anal-ogy a catalyst for perspective recognition, as it appears tobe in Jamies interview? Does analogy accelerate students

understanding and contextualization of new historic topicsand evidence, as also appears to be the case in Jamies in-terview? What sorts of specific teaching practices enhancestudents inclination and expertise to draw historic analo-gies? Research into these dimensions of analogy may helpus better understand its role in history teaching and learn-ing.

On a related note, the quality of Jamies historical think-ing is anecdotal evidence that supports the developmental-ist position in Gifted and Talented education. Adherentsto developmentalism advocate using the quality of origi-nal ideas, student interests, learning approaches that centeron investigation, and talent in specific domains as crite-

ria for identifying gifted and talented children (Caropresoand White 1994; Renzulli 2004). Jamies performance onthe Dawes Act interview suggests that young children mayhave domain-specific gifts not just in reading or math orscience, but in historical thinking. If this is the case, andif we want to nurture this particular gift, then we are welladvised to identify and support the children in which it isfound. Jamie clearly demonstrates unusual gifts within thedomain of historical analysis, but because he performs at anaverage level on standardized tests, his talent was unrecog-nized and unsupported beyond his immediate teacher andclassroom. Jamies expertise in historical thinking tells usthat even without formal extended learning opportunities,his intellectual needs and capabilities may have been at leastpartially fulfilled by the history education he experienced.

Conclusion

In an essay passage titled Historical Empathy Primar-ily Does Not Involve Imagination, Identification or Sym-pathy, Foster states that True history depends on cau-tious inquiry and close examination of available evidence(Foster 2001, 169). Based on my observations of students


12/13

216 Fillpot

doing history, I cannot accept the argument in the pas-sage title, but I dont imagine anyone in the field of his-tory or the scholarship of teaching and learning historywould quibble with the second statement, albeit with somequestions to clarify the intended meaning of true in thiscontext. But just as true always requires explication, so,

too, should phrases like cautious inquiry and close exam-ination when they are used as a counterpoint to conceptslike imagination and sympathy. What inspires the questionsofcautious inquiry? What processes are involved when weclosely examine historic texts? In the case of a documentor an image, a close examination may yield nothing morethan an exhaustive inventory of items on the page. Or itmay yield a rich journey to new and deeper understand-ings, through connections with other texts, conversations,memories, and experiences. Imagination, sparked by careand channeled into analogies, carried Jamie through sucha journey as he closely examined evidence of the DawesAct. This third graders experience challenges us to closely

examine our assumptions about what and how young chil-dren can think historically and what we are doing in schoolsto support such thinking. While all children may not attainJamies expertise in the third grade, they may develop skillin historical analysisat their own speeds, if given the chance.

Notes

1. All personal and project names in the manuscript havebeen changed or blinded for review.

2. Quotation marks within interview statements delin-eate passages in the historic documents that Jamie read

aloud.

References

Ashby, Rosalyn, and Peter Lee. 1987. Childrens Concepts of Empa-thy and Understanding in History. In The History Curriculum

for Teachers, edited by Christopher Portal, 6288. London: FalmerPress.

. 2001. Empathy, Perspective Taking, and Rational Understand-

ing. In Historical Empathy and Perspective-taking in the SocialStudies, edited by O. L. Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and Stu-

art J. Foster, 2150. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Barnes, Steven. 2002. Revealing the Big Picture: Patterns, Shapes and

Images at Key Stage 3.Teaching History, 107: 2633.Barton, Keith. 1997. I Just Kinda Know: Elementary Students Ideasabout Historical Evidence. Theory and Research in Social Educa-tion, 25(4): 407430.

Barton,Keith,and Linda Levstik.2004. TeachingHistory forthe Common

Good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. 1996. Back When God Was Around and Everything: Elemen-

tary Childrens Understanding of Historical Time.American Edu-cational Research Journal, 3(2): 419154.

Bransford, John, Ann Brown, and Rodney Cocking. 2000. How Peo-

ple Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington DC:National Academy Press.

Caropreso, Edward J., and C. Stephen White. 1994. Analogical Rea-

soning and Giftedness: A Comparison between Identified Gifted

and Nonidentified Children.The Journal of Educational Research,87(5): 271279.

Davis, O. L. 2001. In Pursuit of Historical Empathy. In HistoricalEmpathyand Perspective-taking in the Social Studies, editedby O. L.

Davis, Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and Stuart J. Foster, 112. London:Rowman & Littlefield.

Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert Simon. 1984. ProtocolAnalysis: Verbal

Reports as Data. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Fillpot, Elise. 2009a. Bringing History Home: A K5 Curriculum De-

sign.The History Teacher, 42(3): 281295.. 2009b. History in Every Classroom.In The TeachingAmerican

History Project: Lessons forHistoryEducators andHistorians, editedby Kelly A. Woestman and Rachel G. Ragland, 137158. New York:Routledge.

Foster, Stuart. 2001. Historical Empathy in Theory and Practice: SomeFinal Thoughts. In Historical Empathy and Perspective-taking inthe Social Studies, edited by O. L. Davis, Elizabeth Anne Yeager,and Stuart J. Foster, 167182. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kearney, Julie. 2007. Evaluation of the Teaching American His-tory Project: Bringing History Home II. Iowa City, IA: TheUniversity of Iowa Center for Evaluation and Assessment.

http://www.education.uiowa.edu/cea/tah/documents/FINAL.12-20-07.pdf

Keene, Ellin, & Susan Zimmerman. 1997. Mosaic of Thought: TeachingComprehension in a Readers Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann.

Lee, Peter, Roslyn Ashby, and Alaric Dickinson. 1993. Progression inChildrens Ideas about History: Project CHATA. Presentation at the

Annual Conference of The British Educational Research Associa-tion, Liverpool, UK, September 11.

Lee, Peter. 2005. Putting Principles into Practice: Understanding His-tory. InHow Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in

the Classroom, edited by M. Suzanne Donovan and John D. Brans-

ford, 3178. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Lee, Peter, and Rosalyn Ashby. 2000. Progression in Historical Un-

derstanding among Students Ages 714. In Knowing, Teaching &Learning History: National and International Perspectives, edited byPeter N. Sterns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg, 199222. New

York: New York University Press.Levstik, Linda, and Keith Barton. 1994. They Still Use Some of Their

Past: Historical Salience in Elementary Childrens ChronologicalThinking.Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April.Little, Vivienne. 1983. What is Historical Imagination? Teaching His-

tory36: 2732.

Martin, Daisy, and Sam Wineburg. 2008. Seeing Thinking on the Web.The History Teacher41(3): 305319.

Myson, Ian. 2006. Helping Students Put Shape on the Past: SystematicUse of Analogies to Accelerate Understanding. Teaching History122: 2633.

Portal, Christopher. 1987. Empathy as an Objective for History Teach-ing. InThe History Curriculum for Teachers, edited by Christopher

Portal, 89102. London: The Falmer Press.

Renzulli, Joseph S. 2004. Introduction. In Identification of Studentsfor Gifted and Talented Programs, edited by Joseph S. Renzulli,xxiiixxxiv. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rogers, Peter. 1987. The Past as a Frame of Reference. In The His-tory Curriculum for Teachers, edited by Christopher Portal, 320.London: The Falmer Press.

Shemilt, Denis. 1987. Adolescent Ideas about Evidence and Methodol-ogy in History. InThe History Curriculum for Teachers, edited by

Christopher Portal, 3961. London: The Falmer Press.. 2000. The Caliphs Coin: The Currency of Narrative Frame-

works in History Teaching. InKnowing, Teaching & Learning His-tory: National and International Perspectives, edited by Peter N.Sterns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg, 83101. New York: New

York University Press.


13/13


VanSledright, Bruce. 2001. From Empathic Regard to Self-understanding: Im/positionality, Empathy, and Historical Contex-

tualization. In Historical Empathy and Perspective-taking in theSocial Studies, edited by O. L. Davis, Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and

Stuart J. Foster, 5168. London: Rowman & Littlefield.VanSledright, Bruce, and Lisa Frankes. 2000. Concept and Strategic

Knowledge Development in Historical Study: A Comparative Ex-

ploration in Two Fourth-Grade Classrooms. Cognition andInstruc-tion18: 239283.

Wineburg, Sam. 1992. Reading Abraham Lincoln. Presenta-tion at the Reasoning in History and the Social Sci-

ences Conference, Autonoma University of Madrid, Madrid,Spain.

. 1999. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. PhiDelta Kappan80(7): 488500.

. 2001.Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting

the Future of Teaching the Past. Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress.

fillpot.+historical+thinking+in+the+third+grade

Documents