This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] On: 20 September 2012, At: 12:51 Publisher:

Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory & Research in Social Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrs20

I Just Kinda Know: Elementary Students' Ideas about Historical Evidence

Keith C. Barton
a a

School of Education, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, 41099, USA

Version of record first published: 11 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Keith C. Barton (1997): I Just Kinda Know: Elementary Students' Ideas about Historical Evidence, Theory & Research in Social Education, 25:4, 407-430 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1997.10505821

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 systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will 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 in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Theoy and Research in Smiul Education Fall 1997, Volume 25, Number 4, pp. 407430 O by the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies

"I just kinda know": Elementary StudentsrIdeas

About Historical Evidence

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Keith C . Barton Northern Kentucky University

Abstract

'Iltis sftrdy eramitred fourlft and fifth graders' idas about h k b r i d e d e n c e Ihmugh a year-long quulitatiw study of two classrooms, If iden f i f i a signi@vtf sfmgths in sfudents' understanding ofthe reliability ofsmms but also points to drawbacks in their use o f midma?to reach crmclusiotrs. A 1 fhmgh students mufd examine sources criticnlly, they rarely djd so sponhnaously, and w h M o p i n g hkforical accounts t h y either ignwd explicit conshtion oJ fhrelinbility 4Jsources w k e nfed a21 sources q u d y . 'Ilaesefindings suggest t h t the use of evidence shoufd be a continual and explicitficus ofinstruction, and that teachers should h i p sfudmfsclarify tk connectim between their concluswns and the m'dena which supports thm. This study also suggests thuf students would benefit from a more mtitiaus presetrtafion of his t u h l nanatioes, and that their interest in midens might be inrreased by focusing on hjsforicaI issues f h t continue to be signj,ficant in society.

The use of evidence to reach supportable conclusions is one of the most Important objectives of the soda1 s t u d i m r , indeed, of most disciplines. Throughout this century, educators have pointed to the collection, evaluation,and systematic use of evidence as a critical feature of h s t m c tion in the field. Dewey's well-known dictum that reflective thought involves "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it" (1910, p. 6) has been echoed by scholars such as Kilpatrick (19251, Wesley (f937), Bode (19401, Hunt and Metcalfe (1957), Massialas and Cox (I%), and Eeyer (1971). More mently, national curriculum standards for social studies point to the role of data collection and analysis in helping students make informed decisions (National Council for the k i a l Studies, 1994). History educators frequently demonstrate particular sensitivity to such issues. The Bradley Commission on History in Schools (19881, for example, noted that history instruction should emphasize critical judgment in h e use of evidence, and the National Council for History Standards

r e q u i d that nationaZ standards "reflect the principle of sound historical reasoning--careful evaluation of evidence" (National History Standards Project, 1994, p. 3).This concern is well placed, for it is evidence that separates historical knowledge from myths, l w d s , and f a q tales; stories about Columbus proving the world is round or Betsy Ross sewing h e first flag are lacking in credibility precisely because there is no evidence to support them.(and considerable evidence to the contrary). Without evidence, stories about the past rapidly deteriorateinto various forms of "fanciful e l a b rationJr (Vansledright and Brophy 1993).
Research on StudentsFUse of Evidence
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Despite its avowed importance t o social studies education, the use of evidence has until recently received PittIe attention by researchers in the United States. The only indexed entry for the topic in the Handbook of Rem f c h on Social Stadia Tmching and Laming (Shaver, 1991)~ f e rto s the use of evidence by researchers themselves--not by the students they study. The topic has received somewhat more attention in Britain, where Shemilt (1987)identified four levels of understanding of evidence and methodology in history. At the lowest level, students take knowledge of the past for granted and see no problems of evidence or interpretation; they consider historical information to be true because the teacher says it is, and they think primary sou^^ provide direct, textbook-like accounts of the past. At higher levels, students consider historical knowledge problem tic, realize that sources can be biased or incomplete, recognize that historid investigation involves the interpretation of data and the testing of hypotheses against evidence, and see that historical accounts are monstructions which make comwtions that contemporariesmight not have perceived or even understood. Recent research in the United States has bmd h a t students generally fall on the less reflective end of that continuum.Wineburg (1991,1992), forexample, gave several passages (fromprimary sources, textbooks, and fiction) describing the same event-the Battle at Lexington Green--to historians and high school students, and asked them t o explain how they would rank the reliability of each. He found that unlike professional historians, students typically did not see the passages as human creations: They did not construct a willful author behind the text, did not consider the authors' intentions OF social setting, and were unaware of subtexts. (See Yeager & Davis, 1994,1995, for similar studies with university students.) Students in Wineburg's study even ranked textbooks as m o r e =liable than primary sources,and Gabella (1993) also found that high school students regarded history tex@ uncritically and failed to see them as human meations. Similarly, while Eppstein (1994a) noted that students recopizd bias in t~xtbooks, she found they nonetheless regard& them as authoritative sources of factual information.

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Students' Ideas About Hktwical Evidhce Studies with younger students have yielded similar results. I n interviews with fifth graders, Barton (1993) mcountered a highly skeptical attitude towardhistorical accountsbut found that studentshad no undersmding of the kinds of evidence upon which such accounts are based. Bmphy, VanSledright, and Bredin (1992) also found that before studying the topic, fifthgraders had little understanding of what historians do or of the interpretive nature of history; after completing a unit on the nature of history and the work of historians, they had a better sense of the kinds of evidence historians use but still understood little of its interpretive nature or how to reconcile conflicting accounts. And levstik (1989) noted that a fifth grader who had read historical fiction tended to evaluate her textbook's accomt of history i n light oftfiel'truth"she had learned from fiction; thus although historical fiction began to acquaint the student with the interpretive nature ~f history, it failed to provide her with an understanding of the kinds of evidence upon w h i c h interpretations are based. These studies all point to studentsJ lack of familiarity with the use and evaluation of historical evidence. But while they provide vduable insight into students' conceptualization of historical knowledge, such studies often are limited by a reliance on formal interview techniques. F o r d interviews aan provide extensive information on students' thinking, yet a more complete picture requires information on how students use evidence b reach cmclusions in meaningful settings; such settings might include instruction at school, discussions wikh relatives, independent -ding, or visits to historic sites. Research isolated from the contexts in which students are called upon to make use of evidencein or out of school-provides only a partid picture of studentshnderstmding of the evidentiaq basis of history, Current cognitive theory emphasizes the contextualid nature of knowledge-the ways in which social and cultural settings determine how people acquire and use infomation and skills (e. g., Brown et al, 1989; Lave and Wenger, 1991;Resnick, 1991; Rogoff, 1990).A more complete portrait o f students' approach t o evidence requires going beyond clhicd interviews with artificial tasks: It requires data from sttrdmb' use af evidence in the classroom and in other culturally significant settings. Might students demonstrate a less simplistic understanding of evidence if it involved situations that occur in their everyday lives? Would they be more or less critical of historical information that derives from family members? How critical are students when conducting historical research at school? Some recent studies have looked more closely at the relationship between classmom instruction and students knderstanding o f evidence (Levstik, 1996; VanSledright and Frankes, 1996; VanSledrigh t and Kelly, in press), and this research has led to a more complete portrait of students" approach t o history. In particular, thesestudieshave identified specific stumbling blocks children encounter as they attempt to apply what they have learned in classroom settings. The findings reported h e r e t h e result of a year-long investigation combining interviews and extensive classroom

Keith C Barton
observation-overhp in important ways with these recent studies. In particular, this work points to significantstrengths students brought to their understanding of historical evidence, but it also identifies serious shortcomings in their use of evidence to reach conclusims. Both the strengths and the weaknesses in studenbhderstanding hold important implications for classroom instruction.

Research Proceduxes

I conducted this research in the classrooms of Amy Leigh and Tma Reynolds, two teachers who emphasized active involvement, open-ndd assignments, and students' construction of meaning.' Amy's was a combined fourth and fifth grade classroom, whiIe Xna's consisted solely of fourth graders. Their school was near Cincinnati, in a long-established suburban community consisting primarily of stable residential neighborhoods. The students reflected the racial and socioeconomic makeup of the community:All were of Eumpean Americandescent (althoughseveral also mentioned Native Americans in their ancestry), and most came from middle or upper-middle socioeconomic backgrounds; a large pertion had parents with college degrees and jobs in professionalor managerial fields. Slightly more than ten percent of the students, on the other hand, lived in the community's small public housing projects, and thus the range of socioeconomic backgrounds in the classes was wide. The overall academic achievement of students in the school was high, and the school scored among the top ten in the state in each of the first three years of the state's new testing program (theyear of this study and the two preceding years). Both Amy and Tina described their students as exhibiting a range of academic abilities, but they considered most to be average or above average academically. Amy and Tma considered themselves interestd in histor~r, and both devoted a great deal of time to the topic. Neither used textbooks. Instead, they conveyed content through trade books and their own explanations, combined with studentqented projects, role plays and simulations, and open-nded writing assignments. Their teaching accorded well with the general principles of effective subject-matter instruction identified by Prawat (1989)and Goad and Brophy (1994). Rather than attempting to cover a large amount of miscellaneous information and expecting students to remember isolated bacb, for example, Amy and Tina took time to plan sustained instruction in a few topics which they considered important. In addition, Amy and Tm consistently engaged in interactive scaffoldingof students' learning. Rarely did they tell students exactly what to do or how to do it; rather, they used questions to help students develop and improve their own assignments. Both Amy and Tm dso encouraged classand smallgroup discussion, and they expected students to respond thoughtfully to their questions and to each other.

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Students' Idms Abouf Historical E ~ h c e

Students engaged in a variety of instructional activities relatd to several historical topics. At the beginning of the year they collected informtion on their personal histories and developed timelines and presentations about their lives. They also spent several weeks working i n p u p s to i n vestigate changes in aspects of everyday life (sports, work, household technology, cars, etc.) through the use of books, artifacts, and interviews. Students also studied topics such as the %em witch trials, relations between European settlers and Native Americans, daily life in the Colonial Era, the American Revolution, and immigration to the U n i t e d States. Studying most of these topics included the use o f trade books, primary sources, role plays and simulations, presentations to classmates, and written compositions (often from the perspective of people aalive at the time). Students enjoyed their study of history, and they often greeted the arrival of the history portion of their day with enthusiasm. Throughout the year, every student said she or he thought the subject was interesting; iindeed, some students explained that they thought history was a school subject pmisely because it was interesting. Many students identified history as their favorite subject, and most had a conscious conception of d-iemselves and others as active learners about history-s people with definite interests in the past. Among the indicators of students' interest and enthusiasm were their diligence in completing classraum projects, their efforts outside the classroom to obtain additional resources, the conversations they initia t d with their parents and grandparents on what hey had learned at school, and the obvious pride they took in presenting exhibits on their personal histories or other subjects they had researched. Theopenaded and iquiry-oriented nature of these classrooms p m vidd a unique opportunity for the investigation of students' historical understanding. I n order to investigate ssudentsf thinking I used three principal techniques-interviews with students (60th formal semi-structured interviews and informal discussions), classroom observation and participation (includingfrequent discussions with Amy and T i a regarding what students knew and were able to do), and analysis o f students' written assignments. The first two of these methods proved particalarly crucial in helping me gain insight into students' understanding. During the formal interviews, I showed students a series of pictures from American history asked them to put them in order and to t a l k about the reasons for their placement, and then asked a series of questions about their understanding o f history and about what they had done in class during the year. Because I was also observing in their classmms, I was able to ask very specific questions in these interviews, and I was able to relate what students said to what they had heard or read in class. I observe$ i n the classmom on sixty-three occasions--be-ng in August and continuing until March (the last time during the year when formal insbuction was devoted t o historybfor a total of approximately ninety hours; this amounted to approximately eighty percent of students'

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Keith C .Barton history instruction during the year. A particular advantage of participant observation was that it allowed me to observe students in a wider range of contexts than interviews alone could have done. Rather than seeing only their responses t o intewiew tasks, I was able to watch and talk with students as they engaged in their everyday classroom activities. Because students engaged i n so m y group projects, and because Amy and Tm actively encouraged olpen+nd&, thoughtful discussion of topics, my presence in the classroom providd me with innumerable opportunities to record informal and spontaneous comments by students? I drew conclusions from these data though a process of amlyttc induction. After completing the classroom observations, I scanned fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and student compositions i n order to identify an.initial set of broad coding categories; these categories were based on the aspecb of historical thinking identified by Seixas (1995),on the preliminary impressions I developed during fieldwork, and on emerging patterns in the data. I then subjected the data to a more systemtic content analysis,in which I categorized units o f data accordingto these initial categories, many of which were broken down, combined, or a d d 4 to during the course of coding. I analyzed the coded data using means sometimes referred t o as cross-case analpis and constanf cumpartson: I p u p e d the data from different students responding to the same questions or tasks, identified patterns or ~gularities occurring in the data, and then looked for evidence of these patterns (includinga systematic search for negative or discrepant evidence) across different situations, tasks, and interviews. T h i s analysis resulted in a set of descriptive generalizations about students' thinking, which I then combined into broader analytic domains; I used these patterns t o devebp the materials and probing questions used in the find set of intewiewswith students, and I asked Amy and Tina (and in some cases, students) for their feedback on my observations. (The resulting data were coded and analyzed in the same way described above.) I n the following section, I discuss the results related t o one of these broad analytic d o m a i n ~ t u d e n t sideas ' about historical evidence and its use.

Sources of Historical Information

When I asked students during the early stageso f the study how people find out about the past, neady a l thought the information was handed down through word of mouth. As Dwayne explained, "Their mom and dad told them before they died, then they just keep passing it up." Jenny also explained, "Well, like if I i k adulb lived, and if your grandparentsor something were alive, at a certain time, they could tell you." Similarly, Kemy noted, "Maybe it's been passed down through families," and his interview partner C u r t i sadded, "Throughgenerations."Even when asked about topics further removed from their own experience,students thought

Students' J d m A h t Historical Evidence the informtion was transmitted orally; h y , for example, said, "Maybe an Indian that lives now has it passed on to him from his great-greatgreat-grea t-grea t-grea t-grandfathers, who lived back then, and lived to be ninety years old, and passed down to him, so now he could tell us about
h atat'

Students also occasionally mentioned that people could learn about

the past from books (especially after the school year got underway). But when asked how the people who write h k s know what happened, students desmibed hem as little more than written versions of oral transmis-

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

sion; most thought books about the past were written by people in the past, who had witnessed events firsthand. Kenny explained that "some body just decidd to write it down," and went on t o say,
And the history of those books is, people have written them a long time ago, and now they've lasted u n t i l now,and they can tell us about back then [...I Or it's about maybe a child lived back here [indicatingan earlier time], and wrote a book way up there [at a later time], and now it's lasted until now, so it's laski thirty years, from when he was a little &id, and he wrote the book about his childhood and what it was like back then.

Similarly,Kathy suggested,"Maybe if people a long time ago wrote a book a ht theirselvesor something," and Tonya explained, "Somepeople wrote about it back in h e past, and they passed it up through the generations, like somebody might have written it back here, and passed it to these people." Reflecting the belief that bmks about the past had to be old themselves, Nichole maintain& that to find out about the past from mcydopedias, a person would have to find some that are "redly, really old [...I because they would have to say what they had back then,and in newer ones, it doesn't b e stuffthat's old." Students sometimes recopizd that books about history are written I nthe presmt, yet they nonetheless thought those were based directly on accounts whi& had themselves been M e d down through word of mouth. Amber, for example, said, "It could be if their family just sort of, the stories that kept coming up in the family, like if T had kids and I passed the stov down, and maybe they would make a book about it." I n the following interview excerpt, students demonstrate the same idea:

I n t e r n i m So people who write books about things a long time ago, where do you think they found out how things were different?
Susan:

Well, probably h e y lived back then.

Keith C. Barton Intm'auer: What about if somebody wanted to write a book

about how things were different three hundred years ago? How would they know?

Jmn:
Inf-ewer:

They would probably look it up i n the encyclopedia.

But how about the person who wrote the encyclopedia, how do you think they found out?

Susan:
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Probably if they had relatives that were a hundred years old, or eighty years old when they died, and they had a relative, and they find that out, and if my relative was a h m d d years old, they would probably tell me.

When pressed t o think of other ways t o find out about the past, most students made reasonable suggestions.A few mentioned artifacts. Amber, for example, said, "They get a hat fromback then, and a hat fromnow, and they compare." Similarly, Angie explained that "theymight find old stuff, from the old days I.. .] Like if people died or something,you could go to their house to find older things,if they were sorta old." A few studentsalso mentioned journals or diaries. Jesse,for example, said, "If you could have like a purnal," and Nichole said, "Well, they have like diaries and stuff, like when you go on vacation, like back then,like you would have a boat, well, you would find out, and you would write that in your journal, like We went in the boat today.'" And given that they wem sitting in front of a series of historical pictures as I asked them these questions, several students observed that you could learn about the past from pictures. Once students had more experience collecting historical information in their classroom, their answers to interview questions like these became much more confident and varied. Having done their own research using people, photographs, artifacts, documents, and a variety ofcontemporary books, students began to list several of these sources in rapid succession when asked about sources of historical information. 'Fhe answer to this question eventually became so appamt t o students that I dropped it from the interviews a1together.
Evaluating Evidence and Reconciling Conflicting Accounts Whenasked what theywould do if theywere trying to find outabout the past and got different answers, most students initially had trouble answering. Some simply misunderstood the question. Angie, for example, thought that diffemt answers might be found because one person was writing about one country, and another was writing about another. Simi-

Students' Ideas About Historical Evidence larly, Jemnythought h t one person might be talking about Abraham hcoln, while another was talking about George Washington. Once I gave specific examples of how the issue might arise, though,
most students provided more complicated responses. When I asked what they would do if they got different information from relatives t h e y interviewed for their personal t i m e l i n e ~ g a r d i n g what their first word was, for instance-they suggested that some people were more reliable as sources. John said he would believe his parents rather than his sister "because my sister probably wouldn't remember as much as my mom or dad would." J e m yalso said, "I'd go by what my parents said, because your parents would know, your aunt or uncle wouldn't know." Mast students pointed specifically t o the greater reliability of mothers than fakhers. Jeremy said, "I'd go with your mom, because your mom wouId know and not your dad, because your dad wouldn't keep all the records. Your morn or the hospital keeps all your records, and your baby book and all that stuff." Amber agreed, adding, "Your moms are usually around to hear your first word and dads are probably out working." Jenny also noted that "I just think m y mom would h o w m o e than my dad would," and Tonya explained, "My dad is wrong about different things with me all the time, and he gets me and my baby brother mixed up all ~e time." Several students suggested looking at another source. Kathy laughed knowingly when I asked what she would do if her mother said her first w o d was mama and her father said it was dnda, and said, "I would pmbably get a baby book and look,and if i t wasn't in there, then ask like your grandma or grandpa." Dwayne also said to look in a baby book; when I asked him if he thought that would be more reliable, he said, "Yeah, because then ifs thm, you remember it because it was on that day, and now it's gone." One student suggested much the same response but with a v a y different example: Kenny and Curtis had initially agreed that conflicting accountscould only by monciled by guessing, but when Curtis mentioned the assassinationof John F. Kennedy,Kenny pointed to the use of multiple source: They go around,they look for clues, Ulqr found people who had maybe seen it" N e a r the end of the year, students had a chance to apply their ideas on evaluating and reconciling source in class: They read twelve different accounts of the battle at Lexington Green, and ranked the reliability of each (adapted from B m e tt, 1967).When Amy introduced the activity, she compared it to a controversy that had arisen in a recent basketball game involving several of the students (and with which the entire class seemed t o be familiar).They were excited about discussing the differences of opinion invohed, and Amy explained that in this exercise they would be doing much the same thing:They were going to look at several diffemnt accounts of the samewent and decide what they thaught happened. In their initial discussion, students suggested several factors &at might influence the reliability of the accounts. Even before Amy compared it to

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Keith C .Barton the basketball game, Jennyhad asked her, "Are all these colonist people?"; when she found out they were not, she said that !he ones who we= colonisb would probably think thinkthe British started it, and the British would probably think the colonists did. John dso said that it would be important to know whether they were actuarly present at the event. Amy asked whether it would matter how lung afterwad the accounts were written, and studenis agreed that it would; Darren said if they were w r i t t e n more recent!y they would know exactly what happened, but if someone wrote them a long time afterward, they wouldn't remember as much. John said that kmwing who won the war might dso influencewhat they wrote, since they would tend t o favor the winners; Jenny added that if the two sides were still mad at each other after the war, that would affect what h e ym t e as well. Students had no trouble applying these principles once they began reading and discussing the individual accounts. The first was that of a "Colonial onlooker" who asserted that the British fired first Some studenb thought being a colonist would make him more likely to blame the British; others noted that since he was only a n "onlooker,"'he probably wasn't on either side, and that since he was actmily p ~ s e n t he , might be reliable. The second account came from a British officer's diary. Like several other students, Nichole pointed out that since it was a diary, he wouldn't know other people were going. to read it and he would be more likely to tell the truth* The third account was that of a c a p t u d British soldier who claimed that the British fired first. Students thought that the fact that he was "going against his o m side" made him more reliable, but several also p i n t 4 out that he might just be telling the colonists what h e y wanted to hear so he wouldn't be kill&. As NichoZe said, "He's going against the British, so it might be reliable, but it also might not be, becaus he's just saying that so the colonists won't kill him." The fourth account was a deposition sworn to by thirty-four Colonial militiamen, who claimed that the British fired first. Angie argued that if thirty-four people all had to come to agreement on the same statement, it wouldn't be very reliable, because each person wouId have had to make compromises for the p u p to reach consensus; her explanation was so well a p e d that no one suggested an alternative interpretation of the reliability of that source. Several students thought the report of the British commander-based on the reports of the officers who had been present at the battlewould have been unreliable: they thought the officers might have l i d about who fired first so that they would not get in trouble. Others, however, thought they would be likely to tell the truth because the general.would wentudly find out from others what really h a p p e d , and the officers would be i n even bigger trouble if they lied. In one p u p , An@ explained, "If they told a lie, and he found out, he might kill them, becausem y people aren't supposed t o lie." (Donny noted,"But they do.")

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Sf udenfs' Idms A h t Historical Evidence

Students agreed h t an account from a London newspaper would not be very reliable, both because it would be more likely to support the British side and because the information m i g h t have been changed by the time it was published (two months after the battle). Students agreed that a CoIonial newspaper would be just as biased i n the other direction. S b dents also thought that another account, written fifty years later by a former minuteman, would be unreliable because he wouldn't be able to remember very well and because he would want the colonists to look like heroes.
Using Evidence to Reach Conclusions In some ways, the Lexington Green activity described above was one of the most successful of the entire year. The exercise was at just the right level of difficulty: The accounts contained enough archaic language that students had to work to decipher the meaning of some passages, for example, but not so hard they gave up. Similarly, studentswere able to evaluate the reliability of the sources, but these evaluations were not so imrnediately obvious that they required no discussion. Students also thought the exercise {whichlasted several days) was fascinating: they wew constantly engaged in the task, and at the end of the first day were shocked at how quickly time had gone by when lunch time arrived. Travis pointed out that he thought it was interesting because he liked 1whg at the differences of opinion and putting them into categories; Susan thought it was interesting to read someone's diary. In helping students understand how historians interpret evidence, however, the exercise was less successful. Despite understanding and enjoying the activity, students never saw the connection between what they were doing and how people know what happened in history. At the beginning of the task, Amy had explained that they would be doing just what historians do--looking at several different accounts and ltrying to figure out which are the most reliable. From an instructional perspective the purpose of the exercise was to give students a better understanding of how historians work, yet that was precisely what students failed to understand: They never realized that historical accounts are based on the kinds of evidence they were themselves examining. Sweral indications of this lack of understanding arose during the exercise. Jenny noted after reading the first account, far example, that they should write on their worksheets that it was ''just his opinion"; she seemed to think that some of the accounts would not be an "opinion," but would be the actual description of what happened, Similarly, when Tonya came to an introduction which read, "The Condon Gazf fe printed this version of the incident on June 10,1775," she concluded immediately that it was not reliable because it was a "version," I asked her if that made it different than they others, and she said, '"Yeah,because it's just made up." More strikingly, one gmup was discussing an account described as being written by "an English author" in 1811. The consensus among the

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

students was that he might be making it all up. When asked how he wouId have gotten the information for his description, one student said, "Study it"; another explained that since it was the shot head round the world, "he would have heard about it." One student thought the author himself might have been at the battle, but the others were convinced that the account was just "made up." None of them understood that his .account would have been based on some of the sources they themselves were looking at; they thought he either made up the account or just "heard about it" from other people. At the end of the exerciseseveral students agreed t ht any account identified as having an "author" had to be less =liable, because authors make things up in order to make them more exciting. Students' lack of understanding of the evidentiary basis of historical accounts was clearest the day after they finished working through the sources. Amy asked students who they now thought had fired the first shot at Lexington Green. A11 the students had an opinion, but all agreed that none of their opinions were based on the accounts they had just read: Since they thought none of the sources was completely reliable, they simply explained what they thought "must" have happened-without any refenmce to the sources. (Most thought that the coIonists had fired first since they had more incentive to start the war.) Amy w a s surprised that studentshad chosen to ignow these sources; moreover, when asked whether they thought that was what historians d e j u s t decide what they think "must" have happened-all a p e d that they did. The idea of basing an account on evidence was completely lacking in their explanations. While the Lexington Gwen activity compressed issues of historical interpretation i n t o an easily observable time frame, such issues were by no means lacking at other times. Throughout the year, many of studmist assignments q u i d the use of historical w i d e n c ~ r e a h g personal a d family histories, making displays on changes i n everyday life, and designing museums of colonial life. In completing these assignments, students rarely attended to issues of reliability or the evaluation of c d i cting sources. Despite their valid, common sense ideas, most students never considered such questions, wen when the task involved the collection and interpretation of evidence. When completing personal and family histories, for example, students simply collected and recorded the necessary information, and nwer attempbed to verify what they found. Similarly, when developing displays on t h e history of everyday life, students had a wide range of source from which to choose, but they failed to consider whether they should compare sources or seek confirmation for what they learned. Most groups#i n fact, found one book they liked and based their entire presentation on it; when they did include information from more than one sou^ e, each was given equal weight, with no attempt to evaluate its reliability. Since these projects did not explicitly require verification of information or comparison of sources, students can easily be forgiven for not doing S Q but it is important to note that in spite of their understanding that sources

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Studenfs' Ideas A h t Hisfmical Evidence

might be inaccurate or might d isagm, they never considered the issue on heir own initiative during dassroorn projects. More striking were the occasions when students neglected evidence altogether. Just as they had igrlored the primary sources in reaching conclusions about Lexington Green, students sometimes deveIoped their projects without making use of any of the information available. A group developing a display on the history of household technoIogy,, for example, brought in numerous artifacts and placed them into categories according to their age; when Xna asked them how they found out in which category each belonged, they said they "just knew." Another group had used several different books to investigate changes in work, but when they started to develop their presentation, they began by creating new informationbased on no sources whatever-and completely ignored the research they had done on the topic. And when designing museums of colonial life, students frequently responded to questions about the source of their information by saying, "I just b d a know? Despite the presence in the room of books on the colonial era, photographs of preserved colonial homes, and rep~ductions of artwork dating from the period, no student attempted to use these sources to supplement or verify what she or he already thought. r e e n activity, the idea of using evidence to supJust as in the Lexington G port conclusions did not appear salient lor students.
Discussion
This study demonstrates the complexities of students' understanding of historical evidence, Having previously had minimal formal exposure to histov-and even less to the work of historim~tudents understanclably began the year with li ttIe idea o f how evidence is used to create histor ical accounts. Most thought Ithat historical information was handed down by word of mouth--an assumption reflecting the famiIy context in which much of their previous historical learning had taken place (Barton, 1995). But this personalized understanding of historical information also provided students with seasonable ideas about what made some sources more reIiable than others, as well as how to reconcile conflicting accounts: They knew that people sometimesremember differently, that personal bias can influence accounts, that direct sources provide different insights than indirect ones, and that contemporary sources are more reliable than later memory. These findings are similar t o those of VanSledright and KeIIy [in press), who found that some fifthgraders understood that texts could v a v in their validity, and that students considered authors' points of view important in making judgments about those texts. Students in the present study made impressive use of their understanding in analyzing primary sources describing the battle at Lexington Green. These fourth and fifth graders engaged in precisely the kinds of historical thinking that eluded the high schoolers studied by Wineburg

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Keith C .Barton (1991,1992) and some of the university students described by Yeager and Davis (1994,1995):They saw each account as cons&ttckd by a willful author, and they carefully and systematically analyzed the potential bias in each source--the political leanings of the author, the goal the author was trying to achieve, the recentness of the w e n t , even the effects of peer pressure. Students' experiences with disagreements, with bias, and with memory-dI developed outside the context of school hist o r y ~ u i p p e d them with the critical skills needed for sound historical reasoning. But just as importantIy these students regarded texts so critically they considered them pure fiction. F a d with conflicting souwctes, students despaired of establishing any reliabiIiky and thus rejected them all. VanSfedright and Kelly (in press) and Vansledright and Frankes ( 1 % ) found similar difficulties among the students &ey studied; the fourth and fifth graders i n those studies h e w that sources could disagree, but they knew of ao strategies for dealing with such disagreement. But while the studmb in this study regarded sources critically they paradoxicaIly regarded informatior+abstractedf mm the texts that carry it-uncritically: They acted as though how1edge of the past existed i n d ~ pendently of evidence. Thus in developing their projects on the history of everyday life, students had no interest in establishg hevalidity of heir information:If they came across information somewhe-ywhm+they included it, and they rarely considered the possibiIity of looking at more than one mum.Studentsworking on "Colonial museum" or other projects often included infomation that came from no source at aU, but which they just " h d a knew." Most revealingIy, students in A m y ' s class based their conclusions about the battle of Lexington Green on none of the evidence ?heyhad been considering,and they &oughth i s t o h did the same.These findings are similar to those in a recent study by Levstik (19%), who found that when third graders who had completed extensive historical research were asked to put their findings into a narrative form, lhey quickly abandoned t h e information they had acquired and "resortd to wholesale fiction" (p. 2). For educators, the mcial question is why?-why do students have such difficultyemploying evidence when they reach conclusions about the history they study in class? Because the present study was primarily $e scriptive, answers to this question must remain speculative; nonetheless, the experiences of these students suggest that three factors may have been crucial. The first is the most obvious:Students had liMe or no prior experience in using historical evidence to reach conclusionsin classroomsettings and thus were not very skilled at such Usks. These students had not previously studied history systematidly at school, and the history they had encountered then? did not focus on questions of evidence. It is not surprising, then, that their initial attempts at historical analysis did not always accord very precisely with the work of professional historians.Rather than king seen as a failure to think historicalIy, students' performanreshould

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Students' Ideas About Historical Evidence be seen as an early point on a continuum of historical thhkhg, a starting point along a path which will involve expanding exposure to historical sourcesand instruction in their evaluation and use. Some might object that fourth and fifth graders are simply not capable of such anaIysis,'but that view is not supported by this research.Studentsin &is study enjoyed working with primary sources, could evaluate them critically when asked to, and sometimes consulted them in creahg heir own historical accounts; e e m reasonable for beginners, and there is no reason those achievements s ta think that with increased exposure students couId not further refine their use of historical evidence. A second =ason for students' difficulty in using evidence may Iie in the narrative form in which they had previously learned about history. When students had encountered history at school before fourth grade, it was in the context of reading or Iistening to stories of famous people. Outside school, they had heard relatives tell stories about the past, watched television shows or movies set in historic time periods, or read historical fiction or biographies on their own (Barton,1995).In each of these instances, the formof presentation w a s a narrative one:Students learned about characters who participated in causally connected chains ofevenls. Any narrative involves the intentional selection and arrangement of elements, as well as an inkrpwtation of h e connections among those e l e m m e b u t rarely do narraf ives (particularly for children) invite speculation into the basis for such interpretation. More commonly, a narrative presents its audience with a single version of events, arranged so h t it appears to be the only one possible; the audience typically judges the validity of the story" interpretation not by comparison to empirical evidence (irrelevant anyway in the case o f fiction) but by its ~wisimilitude-its congruence with their understandingof the norms of h m motivation and behavior (Brmer, 1986). Children realize that fictional narratives are imaginative creations and do not need to be validated by factual evidence--but what are they to do with nonfiction narratives such as history? Lacking previous instruction in the topic, the students in this study assimilated their understanding of historical narratives to that of fictional ones: Since they thought anything that had an "author" was inherently meIiab1e on emurical grounds, they supplied their own details on the basis of what they thought "must" have happened. Rather than attempting to reconcile or chwse from among conflicting accounts, students regarded all such accounts as equally unreliable and reached their judgments on the basis of a moE general understanding of human rnotivatbn an$ behavior. Finally, explaining students' readiness to assert historical howledge that has no evidentiary basis may require placing their historical thinking into a broader context than the school setting. Like adults, children are most likely to acquire the skillsconsided significant in the society of which they are a part (whether or not those match the instruction they receive at school). Students in Amy's classroom m y not have perceived any cultural

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Keith C .Barton importance in basing conclusions about the past on widence; they m y not have recognized that as a valued skill, or one that they are likely ever to need. After all, what difference would it make which account of Lexington G r e e n was best supported by the souxces? Ifhis is not t o say that s h dents did not care about the exercise, or about history more generally; in fact, they enjoyed the subject immensely, and Ithe Lexington Green activity was a particular favorite. The one aspect of the lesson t bt mattered little to them,though, was the connection between conclusions and evidence, and their indifference to this aspect of historical reasoning may well wflecl a similar apathy in the broader society of which they are a part. Indeed, one could argue that students' performance closely mirrors the general lack of concern in American culture with questionsof evidence. I n many areas of lifepolitics, economics, religion, and popular culture, for examplethe rrncritical acceptance of conclusions appears t o be mom highly valued thantheir analysis in Iight of the grounds that support them. The popularity of psychic telephone lines, weekly tabloids, urban legends, and UFO sighthgs suggests that people do indeed accept many pmpositions without regard to their supporting evidence. 7 h i s kndency to base firmly held beliefs on gmunds other than empirical evidence is also apparent in popular perceptions of history, as demonstrated, for example, by resistance to al temative interpretations of the bombing of Hiroshima (Nobile, 1995) or by nostalgic remembrance of times that never were (Coontz, 1992). Given &is general discomfortwith examining the evidence for beliefs, students' indifference to the issue seems unremarkable: They appear t o have internalized h i r society's lack of interest in this aspect of history. Yet this simpIified picture m y also obscure important facets o f historical reasoning, for there is not one American cultuw, nox any one popular historical understanding--there a* m y A great deal of research in history, sociology, and anthropology has demonstrated how collvnmities etain, pass on, and commemorate p e m q tions of the past that may stand in contrast to official stories mcountered in school or other institutions (Bodnar, 1992; Cohen, 1994; Gillis, 1994; Kamrnen, 1995; Schwartz, Zembavel, and Barnett, 1986). Recent studies with children confirm the pervasiveness of these alternative historicd perceptions, Epsteh (1994b, 19971, for example, found that African American high school students often used the historical information they acquired in their neighborhoods and from their families to construct an understanding that stood i n active mistance to what they Iearned at school. Similarly, Barton and Levstik (1997) found that middle graders drew on the historical memories of people they h e w to provide alternatives to more progressive and benign vetsions of American history. Because families and cornunities can rebin memories that stand in contrast to official interpretations, the comection between historical evidence and conclusions has the potential to assume great cultural importance; issues that conhue to matter in society, but

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Studmts' Ideas About Hisforical Evidence

whose htexpretatim have not yet been firmly established, may spark more interest i n historicaI evidence than do less controversial issues. The fact
that some students in this study were a l ~ a d y familiar with debates over the assassinationof John F .K e ~ e d suggests y that issues of evidence may indeed be salient for childrenwhen they relate to questions that retain their importance in the wider culture. Rather than concluding that students' lack of interest in evidence-based conclusions reflects a general deficiency in American culture, it may be m o r e accurate to conclude that it reflects our society's lack of interest in documenting colonial military encounters. Instead of seeking to explain why students are not mole inclined to use historical evidence when they draw conclusions, perhaps we would be better served by seeking b establish w h i c h topics are most likely to stimulate t h e m to do so.

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

These findings carry several significant instructional implications. First, studneed systematic exposure to the collection and evaluation of historical evidence. Most students initially suggested hat historical informationwas handed down by w o d of mouth, or perhaps by its written equivalent--boo ks written a long time ago. These students did not know that people in the present use a variety of sources i n order to reconstruct accounts of the past. Without a more complete mlderstandhg of the basis of historical lanowledge, studmts are ill equipped to participate in the kinds of "sound historical reasoning"' required for meaningful learning. Amy and Tma, however, atgaged their classes i n assignments in which students tsemselves were responsible for co1Iecting historical information, and &us hey came to see the variety of sources people today use to learn about the past. Projects which q u i r e d students to engage i n historical inquiry-creating personal and family histories, ma king displays and presentations,retreating historical events-led them to a more complete understanding of the soumes of historical information. Elementary students need the opportunity to examine historical evidence fmthand+o t the tertiary and evidencefree accounts in textbooks, but ducuments, photographs, objects, oral accounts, and a wide variety of secondary sources. Second, elementary students have important skills in historical reasoning that can be built on and expanded. Students already were awam of numerous ways in which sources could be biased, and they easily applied their understanding t o historical dmuments; their analysis of the Lexington Green soulre far outpaces the older students described in previous research. These students' greater facility with the task perhaps resulted from its completion in a classroom setting: Students were able to discuss the task beforehand, compare it to what they already hew,and work collaboratively w i t h teachers and peers. Evaluating evidence in that kind of familiar context resulted in more sophisticated responses than i n he

more clinical settings used in previous studies. Given students' interest and ability in evaluating evidence, instruction should incorporate many mow such exercises, i n the elementary grades and later. Through such exercises, students could move beyond their generalized understanding of bias to consider the specifically historical circumstances which produced the sources they examine. They might, for example, learn about political or economic events that influence the subtexts of documents, or they might investigate how historical attitudes toward gender, race, religion, or other aspects of society influence the ways historical documents are worded. Students' prior understanding of conflict and bias in present day accounts provides a solid basis for such an undertaking. But students also need much more experience connecting historical evidence and conclusions. Despite their critical strengths, students did not spontaneously bring these to bear on their historical studies. Although they learned during the year what kinds of sources historians use and had no trouble evaluating sources criticaIly when asked to d o so, students failed to recognize that conclusionsabout what happened in history must be based on critical examination of sources. Students recognized that any source is potentially b i a d , but as a m u l t they either treated all sources equally or threw sources out altogether and based their conclusions on what they ' " d a knew." But historical knowledge requires a more complicated res p u n ~ o n s i d e r i n which g sources are more credible a d evaluatingw h i c h claims are better supported by evidence. En order to engage in this kind of reasoning, students need more practice in the "active, persistent, and careful consideration," in Dewey's terms, of the evidence for historical claims. Such consideration cannot be a simple add-on to a fact-based curriculum, nor even a central component of the d y occasional inquiry project; evidence-based reasoning must be a continual and explicit focus of instruction. Most importantly, students need systematic and ongoing practice with using evidence to form conclusions, and teachers must help students clarify the connection between their conclusions and the evidence which support them. These efforts must become such a common feature o f instruction that students demonstrate careful reasoning as a consistent habit of thinking (cf. Meier, 1995; Sizer, 1992). But helping students develop these skills also q u i r e s considering the factors which m y hinder their application in historical contexts. First, educators need to be extremely cautious in their use of historical narratives. The power of narrative to stimulate students' interest i s well-tabIished, and for several years it was fashionable in some circles to ~ f e to r history as "a story well told." As a device for teaching students history however, the uncritical presentation of stories about the past has serious drawbacks. Because stories usually omit any mention o f the evidence upon which they are based, teachers shouId make sure that they are accompanied by projects which require the examination of evidence. Studentsmight, for example, use sets of historical sources to decide which elements of a

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Studmrs' Ideas About His f orical Evidence

given story are most likely to be true, and which may have been invented or exaggerated. Whenever possible, studentsneed to read works of history whose authors describe their sources of information, and who indicate conflicts among those sources; an essential criterion for the evaluation of children's nonfiction, i n fact, is the extent to which an author makes such issues clear (Levstik and Barton, 1997). Studenb could also use primary sources to create their own stories, and teachers could help them wflect on the comections between the evidence and their interpretations. In addition, when students encounter the larger narratives which comprise the substance of most textbooks and curriculum guides, they should have the chance b use historical evidence & create alternative interpretations-to describe the story of westward expansion from the perspective of Native Americans, or women, or African Americans, for example. Unless students' exposure to historical narratives is accompanied by familiarity with the way those narratives are created, they are unlikely to develop a meaningf ul understanding of the diff emce between evidence-based historical, accounts and "fanciful elaborations" (Vansledright and Bmphy, 1992). Finally, students' encounter with history should focus on issues that retab their significance in contemporary society, for those are the issues most likely to inspire students to support their conclusions with reliable evidence. Instead of w e l l ~ a f t e d "academic" exercises on safe topics such as Lexington G e m , students should examine the evidence surrounding more meaningful historical events-World War II, the Vietnam War, the CiviI Rights movement, and so on. Even topics mow typically found in primary cIassroom have the potential to inspiw strong reactions today. Stories about Columbus, the Pilgrims, G e o r g e Washington, and Abraham Lincoln still master because they are central to the American my thology of "our'%righs as a nation, and evidence which challenges popular perceptions will be treated skeptically; many people, for example, are highly resistant to h e h g h a t Columbus was directly responsible for the mutilation and murder of sountEess Native Americans. Students who examine the evidence surrounding deeply-held American myths may be mow Iikdy to develop an appreciation for the necessity o f linking conclusions to evidence--particularly if they share their findings with those outside the classroom. If students have to overcome skepticism toward their claims, they may see m o clearly ~ the necessity of basing those claims on reliable evidence.

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

The students in this study initially had little knowledge of the

evidentiary basis of historical accounts, but after participating in several historical investigations they developed an understanding of the range of sources which can yield historical information.Students d s o had valid ideas about how to evaluate source: When placed in the historical context they

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

knew best-talking t o relatives-most understood that some source are mare reliable than others and that conflicting sources could be reconciled by walua ting their reliability or by referring to other sources. Furthermore, students were able to apply these common sense ideas in evaluating primary source on the battle at Lexington Green. Yet students never fully understood the connection betweencritically examiningsources and forming conclusions. Although they could examine sources critically when asked, they rarely did so spontaneously, and thus when developing accounts of what happened in history they either ignored explicit consideration of the reliability of sources or treated all sources qually. Several factors m y have contributed to students' difficultyi n basing their historical accounts on evidence-heir lack of previous experience with such skills, their exposure to history primarily in the form of narratives, or heir perception that the use of historical evidence has little importance in the wider culture. Each of these factors could be addressed systematically i n the elementary classroom: Teachers could provide students with more practice in using historical evidence, could make sure that historical narratives are accompanied by critical analysis of the evidence on which they rest, and could focus on issues significant enough to make the question of evidence an important one. Thus wkrile this study shows that elementary students possess important skills needed for historical r e a m ing,it also indicates that instruction should focus more systematicallyand explicitly on helping students make use of these skills; studentsneed practice weighing historical evidence, examining biases, synthesizing information,and reaching conclusions. In perhaps no other area of the school curriculum is content so thoroughly divorced from attention to the methods of investigation and creation of knowledge; especially at the elementary level, studenb rarely have the chance to collect historical information,examine primary sources, or consider conflicting interpretations. More attention to such activities is n d e d in order to help students develop a more complete understanding of the sources of historical k n o ~ l e d g e . ~

Notes W1t.h their permission, I have used the teachershal names. Students' names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect their privacy and that of their families. W l e educational researchers often take the role of nonparticipant observers who attempt to position themselves unobtrusively and not to interfere i n instruction, I explicitly took a much more active role. h addition to working with the teachers to plan lessons and locate resources, I frequentIy taught or cotaught Iessons, and even more frequently interjected c o r n ts, questions,and observations during class--apractice which the teachers actively encouraged and which fit well with the discussion-oriented nature of their instruction and with the generally open feeling of

Students' Ideas About Historical Evidmce

their classes. When students were engaged in individual or group work I often took on the same mle as their teachers-probing students' understanding, asking them questions about the way they carried out the assignment, and providing them with the he1p they needed. The author wishes to thank Linda S. Levstik, Bruce Vansledright, and Michael Whelm for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper,
References

Barton, K. C .(1993, November). History is more than story:Expanding the boundaries of elementary learning. Paper presented to the College and University FacuIty Assembly of the National Cowncil for the Social Studies, Nashville* Barton, K. C. (1994). Historical understandingamong elementary children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Barton, K.C. (1995, April). "My mom taught me": The situate$ nature of historical understandhg. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. 'Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S, (1997, March), Middle graders' expIanations of historical significance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Bemett. P .S. (1967).What happened on Lexington Green:An inqui y in to the nature and methods of history (teacher and students manuals). Washington, DC:Office of Education, Bureau of Research. (Eric Document Reproduction Sewice No. ED 032 333). Beyer, B. K.(1971). Inqui y in the social studies classroom:A strategyfor teaching. Columbus: Merril. Bode, B . H. (1940). How we lenrn, Boston: Heath. Bodnar, J.(1992). Remaking Amerh: P u b l i c memmy, cornmemorntwn, and patriotism in the twentieth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bradley Commission on History in Schools. (1989). Building a history curriculum:Guidelines for teaching. In l? Gagnon & The Bradley Commission on History in Schools (Eds.), Historical literacy: The casefor history in Amwican d u c atim (pp, 16-47). New York: Macrnillm. Brophy, J , Vdledright, B . A., & Bredin, N. (1992). Fifth-gxaders' ideas about history expressed before and after their introduction t o the subject. Theoy and Research in Social Education, 20,440489. Brown, J. S., Collins, A,, & Duguid, P . (1989). Situated cognition and the cul hrre of learning. EduutionaI Remrchn, f8(I), 3242. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds,possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cohen, D. We (1994). The combing o f history. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Cmntz, S. (1992). Tire wny we never were: A m e r b n families and the nostalgia trap. New York:Basic Books.

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Keith C. Barton Dewey, J. (1910). How we think New York: Heath. Epstein, T= L. (1994a). Am& Revised revisit&: Adolescents' attitudes toward a U n i t e d States history textbook.Social Education, 5 8 , 4 1 4 . Epstein, T. L. (1994b, April). M a k e s no difference if you're black or white? Af rim-Americanand European-Americanadolescents' p e r s e v e s on historical significance and historical sources. Paper present& at the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i d Reseamh Association, New Orleans. .L. (1997).Sociocultural approaches t o young people's historical Epstein, T understanding. S o c d Education, 61,28-31. Gabella, M. S. (1993, April). TextuaI truths, photographic facts: Epistemological stumbling blwks in the study of history. Paper p m e n e at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa ti on, Atlanta. Gillis, J. R. (1994). Memory and identity: The history of a lat ti on ship. In J. R. Gillis (Ed.), Commmations: The politics ofnational identity (pp. 3-29). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Good, T .L., & Brophy, J. (1994).Looking in classrooms. New York: Harper CoIlins. Hunt, M. P . ,& Metcalfe,L. E.(1957). Teaching high s c h I social studies: Ptloblems in rq?ective fhinking and social understanding. New York: Harper. Kammen, M.(1995).Review ofIwona I-Zarecka, Frames of remembrance: The dynamics of collect i n ? memory. H i st o y and T h y , 34,245-261. Elpatric k, W .H.(1925).Fouttdafims of method: InfonmI talks on teachingm New York: Macmillm. Eave, J., & Wenger, B. (1991). Situafed learning: Legitimate p&pherd partidpafion. New York:Cambridge University Press. Levstik, L.S. (1996, April). 'The color must come in the words": The challenges of historical interpretation with children. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the College and University Faculty Assembly, National Council for the Smial Studies, Washington, DC. Levstik, L. S.(1989).Historical narrative and the young wader. T h y Into Practice, 28, 114419. Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (1997). Lbing histoy :lnmtigating with children in elernenfay and middle schools. Mahwah, NJ: ErIbaum. MassiaIas, B. G., & Cox, C. B. (1966). Inquiry in a s o c i a l studies. New York: McGraw-Hll. Meier, D. (1995). How our schools could be. Phi Delta +ate, 76,369373. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations o f e;rceEIence: Cum'cufumstandards for social sfd i e s (Bulletin No, 89).Washington, DC: Author. National History Standards Project. (1994). National statedart& for Uteifed States hisfmy: Exploring the American experience. tas AngeIes: National Center for History in the Schools.

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Students' Ideas About Historical Euidence W etwn, J. L . (197'0). Taching e l m taysocial studies through inquiry, Highland Park, NJ: Dreier Educational Systems. Nobile, P ,(2995).Judgmmf at the Smithsonian. New York Marlow. Yrawat, R. (1989). Teaching for understanding: Three key attributes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5,315328. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition:Thinking as social practice. In L. 'B. Resnick, j .M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC:American Psycholo@calAssociation.

Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012

Rogoff, B. ( 1 9 % ) ) . Appmticeship in fhinking: Cognitive dmelopment in social con t a t . New York: Oxford University Press. Schwarkz, B . ,Zerubavel, Y . ,& Barnett, 8.M.(I!%). The recovery of Masada: A study in collective memory. The SocwIo~cc~I Qwrterly, 27,147-1 64. sixas, P .( 1 9 % ) . Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding. In D. R. Olson and N+Torrance (Eds.), The handbook o f education and hum n deveZoprmt (pp. 7 6 7 8 3 ) . Oxford: Blackwell. Shaver, J. P. (Ed.) (1991). Handbook of research on sociall studies teaching and Seatning. New York: Macmillan. Shernilt, D. (19871.Adolescent ideas about evidence and methodology in history. h C . Portal (Ed.), The histoy cum'culumfbr teachers (pp. 39-61]. London:Heinemam. Sizer, T .K . (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin. VanSledright, B. A, & Brophy, J. (1992). StorytelIing, imagination, and fanciful elaboration in children's historical reconstructions. Amwican Educatfond Research Journal, 29,837-59. Vansledright, B.A,, & Frankes, L . (1996). Concept- and strategic-knowledge development in social studies: Comparative case studies of integrated teaching in two fourth-grade classrooms. Unpublished manuscript. Vansledright, B . A., k Kelly, C. (in press). Reading American history: The M u e n c e of multiple sources on six fifth graders. Elementary School Jour-

nal.
Wesley, E .B. (1937). Teaching the social studies: Thw y and pact ice. New York Heath. Wineburg, S. S. (1991).On the reading of historical 8 x 6 : Notes on the breach between school and academy. Am& Educnh'onaE Research Journd, 28,
495519.

W I P ~ US ~ .S. &(1992). Probing the depths of students' historlcrical knowledge. Pmspecfives of the American H i s f w i d Associatim, 30,19-24. Yeager, E. A., & Davis, 0.L., Jr. (1994, April). Understanding the "knowing how" of history: Elementary student teachers' thinking about historical texts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Assodation,New Orleans.

moth C. Barton Yeager, B. A., & Davis, 0. L . , Jr, (1995). Between campus and classroom: Secondary teachers' thinking about historical texts. Journal of Research and Deoeioprnent in Education, 29,l-8.
Author

KEITH C.BARTON is Associate Professor in the M o o 1 of Education at Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, 41099. Email: <kbattonQtso.cinJx.net>
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 12:51 20 September 2012