This article shares findings of how two third-grade children analyzed historical sources on a topic about which they had no prior knowledge. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. 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.
This article shares findings of how two third-grade children analyzed historical sources on a topic about which they had no prior knowledge. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. 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.
This article shares findings of how two third-grade children analyzed historical sources on a topic about which they had no prior knowledge. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. 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.
This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile]
On: 27 September 2012, At: 08:26
Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Social Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtss20 Historical Thinking in the Third Grade Elise Fillpot a a University 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 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. The Social Studies (2012) 103, 206217 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X online DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2011.622318 Historical Thinking in the Third Grade ELISE FILLPOT University of Iowa College of Education, Iowa City, Iowa, USA This article shares ndings of how two third-grade children who have systematically studied history in grades K3 analyzed historical sources on a topic about which they had no prior knowledge. In think-aloud interviews, the children analyzed written documents on the 1887 Dawes Severalty Act. One of the children, who tested on the third-grade level for reading, demonstrated extensive use of the sourcing heuristic and analogical thinking to contextualize and interpret the documents. Care and imagination seemed to facilitate the childs deployment of historical thinking. Both children informed their judgments about the Dawes Act by referencing the evidence. These ndings suggest that curriculum, rather than age, is the strongest limit on U.S. elementary students engagement in historical thinking. The ndings also provide evidence of gifted and talented ability in the specic domain of historical thinking and suggest that 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 SamWineburg published a compilation of his land- mark studies that delineated the processes historians use to read 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 the uniqueness of the past and the human perspectives with which all texts are imbued. The Bringing History Home 1 K5 curriculum and professional development project be- gan the year that Historical Thinking was published. It has proceeded on the assumption that if children systematically study history as an interpretive, evidence-based discipline throughout the elementary grades, they can begin in the earliest school years to develop the historical skills that Wineburg identied. An external evaluation has yielded evidence that supports the project assumption (Kearney et al. 2007). As the Bringing History Home (BHH) creator and principal investigator, however, I have sought more de- tailed pictures of student thinking than can be captured in a pencil-and-paper assessment. Specically, my question has been whether and how third-grade children can learn and deploy the historical thinking heuristics that Wineburg identied. As part of my pursuit of this question, in May 2009 I 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 Iowa College of Education, 1111 Downey Drive, Iowa City, IA 52240, USA. E-mail: elise.llpot@bringinghistoryhome. org Jamie read and analyzed seventeen sources on a history topic he had never previously encountered, the Dawes Sev- eralty Act of 1887. The Dawes Act reduced collective tribal landholdings in the United States by making land allot- ments to individual tribal members and included a provi- sion to eventually grant citizenship to Native Americans who received the allotments. At one point, as Jamie sought to 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, so when were Native Americans getting to vote? Because this is in 1887, some Native Americans must have voted after that but the African Americans didnt get to vote until 1965 because . . . the poll taxes . . . well the voting right act that was made in 1965, which was by Johnson, that was exactly 100 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 to many of the other musings Jamie verbalized as he sought to make sense of documents on a topic in which he had no direct background knowledge. At the time of the interview, Jamie read on a third-grade level, but he demonstrated considerable expertise in historical thinking and knowledge of U.S. history. His expertise didnt magically accumulate; his school is part of the BHH project, which means that he had studied history beginning in kindergarten. While he had not formally studied Native American history, his knowledge of other historical events and movements in the nineteenth century and his ability to interpret history texts enabled him to make meaning of sources on the Dawes D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
Historical Thinking in the Third Grade 207 Act. An exploration of the strategies he used to explore this set of original sources may enhance our understanding of howchildrencanengage inhistorical thinking whentheir learning has been systematically developed and supported. Historical Thinking Skills BHHbegan in 2001 and has been entirely funded by Teach- ing American History grants. The program focuses on a paradigm of history as an evidence-based, interpretive ex- ploration of the past. In BHH classrooms; this means that children analyze original written and visual sources in tan- dem with several other processes that help them estab- lish geographic and chronological contexts for historical events (Fillpot 2009a). Sam Wineburgs (2001) argument for teaching students to actively read history sources de- scribes succinctly why we emphasize source analysis in our project: Language is not a garden tool for acting on inani- mate objects but a mediumfor swaying minds and changing opinions, for rousing passions or allaying them . . . If stu- dents (do not understand this) they become easy marks for snake-oil vendors of all persuasions (83). Wineburgs research also identies historical thinking skills 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 vocalize their thoughts as they read historical texts, Wineburg iden- tied three strategies or heuristics history experts use to interpret evidence. In sourcing, historians inventory a texts attributes to take into account how elements such as the author, date, and place of creation of a piece of evidence inuence how the evidence should be interpreted (Wineb- urg 1990). In contextualizing, historians consider how the historic context of a piece of evidence inuences interpre- tation (Wineburg 1992). And in corroborating, historians compare various pieces of evidence to better understand how 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 student ideas about history. Ultimately, the researchers character- ized ideas about history as levels of progression (which could perhaps be more accurately dubbed levels of power) that range from simplistic misconceptions to complex un- derstandings (Lee and Ashby 2000; Lee et al. 1993; Lee 2005). For example, in the progression of ideas about historic evidence that Lee et al. identied (1993), the student of history who reads evidence from the past at face value as simple fact has very little power to develop a defendable interpretation of that evidence. In contrast, the student who understands that attributes of a piece of evidence shape how the evidence should be read has much greater power to accurately explain and understand it (Lee 2005). This insight can inform how we develop skill in sourcing; it reminds us to explicitly teach that when we analyze texts we inventory and consider their attributes. Other research ndings tell us we need to attend to chil- drens lack of power to accurately place events in a larger time context and to understand that change is often broad and amorphous, untraceable to a single individual or event (Barton and Levstik 2004; Levstik and Barton 1994; Lee et al. 1993). These challenges point to the need to immerse children in studying historical themes, periods, and eras (Shemilt 2000). Such immersion may help students more accurately contextualize the historic gures and events they subsequently 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 denition each time it is invoked. In history, empathy has typically but not always been equated with what is more precisely called perspective recognition. Whether perspective recognition is an ends or a means is contested, however, with a few re- searchers interpreting it to be a state of mind and many others 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 in history is an achievement: it is where we get to when we have successfully reconstructed other peoples beliefs, val- ues, goals, and attendant feelings . . . it is not to say that the pupil has gone throughany particular let alone special process. Christopher Portals view offers a seemingly con- tradictory vision of empathy as a means rather than an end, empathy is a way of thinking imaginatively which needs to be used in conjunction with other cognitive skills in order to see signicant human values in history (1987, 89). Yet these researchers both seem to agree with Littles belief that empathy is an ephemeral part of the historians imaginative process, a heuristic consisting of intuition and other feeling-based responses to evidence (1983). In a reviewof their own and others research, Barton and Levstik (2004) weigh into the empathy realm by delineat- ing historical perspective recognition from what they call empathy as caring. They identify four ways in which his- tory inspires students to care. Among others, these forms of care include student motivation to study history and to make moral judgments about historic events. Wineburg (1992, 1994) contributed to the perspective recognition fray by identifying how good history readers informtheir interpretation of historic evidence with knowl- edge of the specic time and place in which it was created. He called this contextualized thinking and classied it as a skill or heuristic. In his think-aloud study of how D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
208 Fillpot two students in a graduate program for history teachers interpreted selected texts by and about Abraham Lincoln, Wineburg (1992, 1994) discovered a signicant difference in the power of their interpretations. Counterintuitively, the former 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 or wrote, Ellen determined that it is difcult to draw a sim- ple determination about whether or not Lincoln was racist basedonhis words. She concludedthat his words were those of a consummate politician, and so they tell us more about how Lincoln perceived his audiences values than about his own beliefs. Ted, the history major, took Lincolns words at face value, ignored their contexts, and concluded he was racist. What isnt evident is why the young man did not contextualize the texts. Perhaps he had no awareness of the importance of contextualized reading, or perhaps his pre- existing narrative of racism limited his ability to perceive multiple dimensions of evidence. Whatever the cause, he provides a strong example of the absence of contextualized thinking. Wineburgs study at face value may appear to be the an- tithesis of Portals conclusion that perspective taking is at least partly an act of imagination. In his Reading of Lin- coln study (1992), he cites reason as the only weapon we possess to combat problems that threaten the well-being of the world. And yet imagination and reason may not oc- cupy opposite sides of a divide. The prevalence of analogy in Ellens nuanced interpretations that are listed as exam- ples in the Lincoln study suggests that imagination is an important tool in contextualizing texts, if we are willing to entertain the idea that drawing an analogy is partly an act of imagination, of making a mental leap to summon how two disparate things are in some way conceptually related and alike. Most adults probably consider imagination to be a skill commanded by children. But what of historical analysis, perspective, and empathy? Can they also be the purview of children? In 2009 I interviewed six third-grade children to explore whether and how they used historical thinking skills to engage with original sources. The rest of this article describes two of the childrens interviews in detail. The Exploration Context Mrs. Johnson, a third-grade regular classroom teacher in a midsized Iowa public school district, has been the lead teacher and mentor for Bringing History Home since the project pilot began in 2001. Prior to her participation in BHH, Mrs. Johnson had no formal emphasis on social studies in her preservice or in-service professional devel- opment. Her excitement for teaching history using the ve processes 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 needs for a pilot or elaboration of classroom historical thinking strategies that were either truncated or not included in the original BHH curriculum for pragmatic reasons. Because we work with entire schools, very few teachers in our project have formally studied history and most have not 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 to which we embed explicit instruction on sourcing and con- necting evidence to accounts in professional development and the student curriculum(Fillpot 2009b). While the orig- inal project design included source citation activities, these were put on hold because of time shortages for professional development and the teachers available time to teach his- tory during the school year. An event in the early spring of 2009, however, made me aware that BHH teachers might be informally helping students develop sourcing habits. At that time, twothird-grade teachers inthe BHHproject administered a photo analysis assessment to their students that centered on an image of African Americans working in a cotton eld. The citation on the assessment image dated the photo in the 1890s. Several hundred high school students in the same geographic region as the third-grade classes had taken the assessment, and fewer than twenty de- termined that the people in the eld were not slaves. In con- trast, two-thirds to three-fourths of the BHH third graders (fteen of twenty students in one class and sixteen of twenty students in the other) inferred that the people in the eld were sharecroppers. Because the children had studied the transition from slavery to sharecropping, they almost cer- tainly made their inference by sourcing (i.e., they used the date on the photo citation and their prior knowledge to determine how to contextualize the people in the image). The outcome of this assessment highlights the role of prior knowledge in forming defendable inferences. It also refutes ndings by those who have studied inferencing abilities in a curricular vacuum and consequently drawn age-based conclusions about students abilities to draw accurate his- torical inferences. If we use errors reasearchers have made in drawing conclusions about age-related abilities to guide curricular decisions, we may miss the opportunity toengage young children in studying history with integrity. The op- portunity should not be forsaken, because research tells us there are many misconceptions in student ideas about the nature of history (Lee et al. 2005). By teaching history as an evidence-based, interpretive discipline from the beginning, we may avoid or correct childrens misconceptions from their earliest years in school and develop students critical thinking and analytic skills. As I conducted a lengthy ob- servation of Mrs. Johnsons third-grade class in the spring of 2009, I continued to recognize evidence of fairly sophis- ticated student historical thinking. In addition to teach- ing the established BHH Industrialization unit during her social studies periods, Mrs. Johnson used reading sessions D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
Historical Thinking in the Third Grade 209 to implement her new instructional model. The model aligns sets of original historical sources with a trade book to engage students in making predictions and inferences. In the other BHH unit activities, Mrs. Johnson read aloud trade picture books, both historical ction and nonction; students analyzed documents and photos individually and in groups; the class added events and people to the timeline it had been constructing throughout the year; and the class placed signicant geographic locations on the U.S. map it also illustrated throughout the year. For the nal synthesis project, each child wrote a chapter book on industrializa- tion. Students with IEPs for writing were given the option to dictate their chapters after they wrote an opening sen- tence for each one. As I observed all the activities Mrs. Johnsons students were experiencing, I became more and more curious about the childrens individual skills. In the course of the group activities and whole class discussions, students voiced strik- ingly insightful interpretations of sources. In their vocal statements and their writing on KWL source analysis guides, I recognized students engaging in sourcing, con- textual thinking, and corroboration at various levels of mastery. I began to wonder how the children would en- counter sources without the benet of written guides and their peers comments. Interview Methodology In deciding how best to study whether, and possibly how, BHH students use the heuristics Wineburg identied when they encounter original historical sources, I chose to use a think-aloud interview method. Think alouds provide the possibility to glean the sorts of insights into the interme- diary processes of young childrens thought (Ericsson and Simon 1984) that Wineburg (2001) gleaned from focused interviews 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 in studies with children than in those with adults, because writing ability can severely limit young childrens abilities to express their thinking. I did not want writing ability to interfere with the students expression of their thoughts as they encountered a set of sources. I also did not want simple vocabulary questions or other diversions to derail the chil- drens explorations. By assuming the interviewers role in a think aloud, I would be able to interact with the children on a limited basis to help reveal their abilities and inclinations. Ultimately, I conducted two sets of interviews. In the rst interview, which will not be discussed in detail in this article, students analyzed photographs related to a topic they had studied in one of their history units. Six students fromMrs. Johnsons class participated in the interview; one boy and one girl from each of three general groupings for reading ability: belowgrade level, on grade level, and above grade level. This group of six was drawn from a total class of twenty-ve students, of which three students achieved above grade level in reading on a nationally standardized test, fourteen achieved on grade level, and eight achieved below grade level. In 200809, in the Iowa public school in which Mrs. Johnson teaches, 28 percent of the children were 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 abilities even further. To what extent could they interpret evidence on a topic that was not related to one they had previously studied? With time to the end of the school year running out, I quickly designed a second think aloud to conduct with the two children who had displayed the most adept historical thinking on the rst. The two students who par- ticipated in the second interviewwere Jamie [student names are pseudonymous], a ten-year-old boy who tested on the third-grade level for reading, and Tara, a nine-year-old girl who tested above the third-grade level for reading. Neither child qualied for the schools academically gifted and tal- ented program. Throughout the Segregation and Industri- alizationunits, however, the twochildrenhaddemonstrated exemplary intellectual engagement in the books, original sources, and questions Mrs. Johnson posed. The evidence set for the second interview centered on purposes for and consequences of the Dawes Act of 1887, whichdividedNative Americanreservations intoindividual allotments. 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 ofcials prior to the passage of the legisla- tion Two statements by Euro-Americans opposed to the Dawes Act made prior to its passage One statement in opposition to privatization of reserva- tion land, made by the Seneca Tribe prior to passage of the Act Two federal laws, the Dawes Act and earlier legislation that ended the independent nation status of tribes within territories claimed by the United States A statement by Theodore Roosevelt about the effects of the 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 written documents, I abridged and edited the texts syntax into simpler language. Even so, I ended up reading a few of the pieces aloud for Jamie. As the interviews progressed, I asked three primary ques- tions in the following order: D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
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 rst interview and from reading com- prehension think alouds, we were able to dive right into the evidence set with little direction on my part. I did not tell the children anything about the topic or nature of the evidence before we began, except that the written docu- ments had been revised to make them easier to read. The interviews unfolded in two stages. In the rst stage, which was the lengthiest, the children analyzed the sources one a time. In the second stage, I posed the primary questions sequentially in the order listed above. Jamies interview lasted a little over two hours. We took one 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 were allowed 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 third party. To analyze the transcripts, I dened a statement as a childs vocalization that was uninterrupted by the inter- viewer speaking or providing a new piece of evidence for analysis. The childrens statements were coded for align- ment with Wineburgs heuristics of sourcing, contextualiz- ing, and corroborating (2001) and with caring as broadly dened 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 recoding again the statements for which there was disagreement in the rst and second codings. I ultimately used the categories that emerged in the third step. (The validity of this analysis would have been improved if the coding had also been con- ducted by one or more additional raters, but I do not work with anyone who has the sort of operational knowledge of the categories that the coding required.) For purposes of coding, I delineated sourcing as the ex- plicit vocalization of a document attribute, typically the date of creation or author. I delineated contextualization as references to historic events, gures, and concepts that the children summoned from their own prior knowledge as they sought to construct meaning from the sources. Cor- roboration was delineated as references to using more than one source to inform an interpretation of the evidence. During the coding process, some statements did not t neatly into the categories in the existing frameworks. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that these state- ments were not specically enough dened by any of the heuristics or tools. In considering the nature of these state- ments that seemed to require more specic delineation, I identied three categories that would convey their natures in greater detail: clarifying basic comprehension of terms, drawing analogies between historic events or themes, and making causal connections between historic events. Interview Analysis Sourcing Twenty-two of Jamies statements included examples of sourcing. From the very beginning of the interview, he at- tended to dates. His rst statement in the interview, after he read aloud the rst document, was: Do I still read the years, cause I usually do . . . like what we were doing last week about the Library of Congress, you have to write where you got the pictures. Later, after reading the Dawes Act itself, Jamie looked at two other sources he had already read and mused, This is the same year as this, 1887. This is in February 8, 1887, this is from the 19s. It would help us to know what 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 something going on that none of this tells us. Maybe the Indians did something that maybe the whites dont like or the whites are just prejudice against them and taking their land for no reason. By recognizing a gap in dates among the documents maybe there was something going on that none of this tells usJamie edged into sensing a need for rudimentary corroboration, of nding information in other sources to provide clarity, which we will explore more in a moment, In these examples, Jamie uses dates to situate the chronology of events and ideas or perspectives that are implied in the documents he is reading. In some of his musings, however, he uses both dates and document authors to make sense of what is going on: . . . so we are going to buy pieces of the reservation for, well, for ourselves in 1876. The U.S. government annual report for 1876. U.S. government. Are the U.S. government buy- ing this? 2 In a more advanced realm of sourcing, Jamie uses his knowledge of the probable white ethnicity of government ofcials in the nineteenth century to informhis understand- ing of their perspectives and motivations in the documents they wrote. After reading a poster advertising former reser- vation land for sale, Jamie puzzled over the men whose names were listed at the bottom of the ier. 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 does this or is it just his job? Thats a hard one [the document] even though it has a picture. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
Historical Thinking in the Third Grade 211 In another instance, Jamie wonders not just about the values of individuals in the government, but about white society as a whole: maybe we are trying to close down the reservations so they dont have anywhere else to go and they would just have to 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 werent segregation . . . The latter statement reveals Jamies prior knowledge of segregation and draws us further into the overlapping ter- ritories of sourcing and contextualization, where sourcing becomes a more nuanced tool because the source attribute itself is contextualized. The coding count for the sourcing statements may be low when we consider this overlap with contextualization, as well, for in various instances Jamie responded to a piece of evidence by describing something related 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 Jamies statements. He used contextualization in some instances to anchor his sense of the time in which the documents were created 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 own knowledge as he reads aloud a document, voicing his own comprehension 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 that like 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 only the whats of voting but the historic whys. Jamie: Ok, now it feels like were on slavery and segregation because slavery ended in 1865 and African American men could vote in 1870 so when were Native American, because this is in here February, well, 1887 so Native Americans must have voted after African Americans. But did Native Americans 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 nd that out? Jamie: Well the voting act right that was made in 1965 which by Johnson that was exactly 100 years after slavery. So how could you get your answer by that. You would have to research by it, what kind of research would you have to use by it, would you have to use the internet or would you have to use your schema. I probably should know this because we done the segregation and slavery unit for a really long time. We didnt do much on poll taxes we just read 3 books about it, I dont know for sure, on the internet probably. Interviewer: On the internet absolutely and then what would our search terms be? Jamie: Key search word is poll taxes . . . We could type in poll taxes and if it doesnt show up poll taxes, laws, if that doesnt show up, poll taxes, it would have to be something with poll taxes. When did poll taxes end because I know it started in 1870 probably did go on until 1965. Corroborating These musings demonstrate not only overlap between sourcing and contextualization they are an example of Jamies inclination toward rudimentary corroboration as well. As he circles around the question of Native voting rights, he voices a desire to clarify his understanding with research from additional sources and his sense that read- ing just three books on a topic is not adequate to inform his historical knowledge. This wish for additional evidence to determine a date is not corroboration in the sense that an expert reader compares multiple pieces of evidence to determine how to interpret one. As an invocation of the power of multiple sources, however, I perceive that it is on a continuum toward developing that skill. Fifteen of Jamies statements included references to corroboration, and a few of these suggest he has more than an emergent grasp of the importance and uses of corroboration. As he pondered the purpose of the Dawes Act, he referenced the maps that illustrated the changes in land holdings and put them into play with the legislation itself: I think its more land by reading this because this little paragraph right here after the tribe members received their land pieces there may be extra land left over and sold to non-Indiansnon-Indians are whites which in 1887 this is what year was this in, close to this, Indians didnt have as much land as the whites do. Its pretty much the halfway mark on the US so they get more than half because of the half way mark plus there is a little areas that the whites have in between so you can tell by that and this because in 1865 this law hasnt came yet but just imaginehere is an 1880 picture, this is 1887, here is the half way mark again and they get half for sure. And look at all this through here. Indians only had like one-fourth of it and then if you look like another 100 yrs later they dont even have a 4 th of that. As the examples above illustrate, its rarely a straightfor- ward process to isolate historical analysis skills from one another when they appear in a complex meaning-making deliberation. Complicating the somewhat Quixotian task of isolating the skills for identication, one of Jamies approaches to interpreting the sources didnt seem to t D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
212 Fillpot comfortably in the original coding categories. The ap- proach, constructing analogies, seemed to facilitate Jamies basic comprehension, contextualization, and sourcing by bringing his prior knowledge to bear on newly encountered historic elements. Analogical thinking Analogy is by nomeans newtothe worldof history teaching andlearning. In1987 Peter Rogers arguedthat the study of history provides us, inter alia, with a stock of repertoire . . . of analogies whichtogether constitute a frameworkof refer- ence, a way of looking . . . (14). Analogical thinking has not, however, received much attention, and as Ian Myson (2006) of Great Britain observes, little work has been done on using analogies in history classrooms. Because analogy was not on my research radar until it surfaced in the in- terviews, I was surprised and particularly intrigued by how extensively and effectively Jamie used it to facilitate both simple and critical engagement with the sources. Fifteen of his statements on the Dawes Act interview included uses of analogy. Sometimes he put analogy to use in the service of simple vocabulary comprehension: The difference betweenbarbarians anda civilizedpeople is the difference between a herd and an individual. Where ev- eryone owns everything together saving and competingI know what competing means since I like baseball. Its like one teamversus anotherthey have nomotive or reward. Sometimes, simple vocabulary comprehension morphed into lengthy connections that ultimately enabled him to recognize historic perspectives: Jamie: We need laws that make Indians adopt the ways of non-Indians. What are they saying, adopt? Interviewer: It means to take them up, to sort of make it your own. Jamie: Like when you adopt children, is that what they are kind of using? . . . So the non-Indians wanted the Indians to be like them but they cant do that because the Indiansdo you knowwhat Amish people areok we sawsome people, last weekend, maybe, I didnt know for sure because I had never saw Amish people before, we were on the road and I told my dad I feel sorry for those people and he said why do you feel sorry for themI am like well Dad they dont have as much as stuff as I do. And he said thats how they live they are happy that way they live in nature they grow their own crops and stuff because we were going down the road because we saw this family walking a boy with bare feet and there was a mom and we saw a young boy riding down the street and we also saw these two women in the eld. It comes down to this what I was saying earlier I wanted them to be like me I wanted them to live in the same houses, not the same houses, Interviewer: Same kinds of houses Jamie: Yeah. My dad said they dont do the same stuff as us, like I am a Catholic and their religion is Mennonite. And since not everybody lives the same as us., we are Catholic and we can look back in history and we are different from Jews like Jews dont believe Jesus is the son of God they still think he is going to come but Catholics think Jesus is the son of god, but the Indians dont really want to be like the non-Indians just like the Amish people dont want to be like us. They like the way they live now. Is it possible to read Jamies efforts to make sense of white and Indian relations in the nineteenth century as anything less than a rich act of imagination: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses? As he talked, my own mind lled with images of a young boy and his father driving together, of Amish children riding horses in the twenty-rst century streets of Iowa, and even of a child at some moment encountering the reality that there exist spiritual faiths different than his own. But this isnt only a story about barefoot children or religious faiths; it is a story about Jamies awareness of his own process of learning to respect foreignness when he sees it (VanSledright 2001). He did not make things up fancy free and then assume he understood a perspective that is foreign to him, reducing it to something akin to his own experience. He is recognizing, not taking, the perspectives of others, and this recognition is the direct result of Jamie bringing his imagination to bear, via analogy, on a historic document. Analogy also helped Jamie grapple with causation and change. Further along in the interview, as he considered the purpose of the Dawes Act, he referenced several documents and considered their implications: On the next one lets see what it tells usIndians adopt the ways of non-Indians and absorb them into the non- Indiansthe non-Indians want a law to make the Indians come into their world instead of their own world. Its just like the planets, its just like that we are on this planet here and they are this planet over there and they want to make them come over here to make this world bigger they probably want this to be all non-native American land. And at the conclusion of the interview, Jamie turned to analogies to comprehend the enormity of the Native loss: Jamie: This is kind of reminding me of WWII, when the Jews were taken away. It reminds me of, the acres were like the people . . . it reminds me of that because I know so much about WWII . . . and the 8 million I remember because I am reading a book Memories of Anne Frank . . . and I always think of that when I see millions when doing math or when we say millions I always think of that because 6 million people were taken away and only like not even 500 survived . . . Anne Frank escaped to Switzerland and then the Neverlands (sic) and the Germans invaded it . . . I wish she would have survived 2 more weeks because she died 2 weeks before Russians took over. You know what was pretty sad was only Otto Frank survived . . . I dont know how long he survived after that. My dad would be so sad if D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
Historical Thinking in the Third Grade 213 he lost all of us. He would be sad if we just got pneumonia or something. Interviewer: Ok, lets come back to this question, Jamie. Im afraid Im going to exhaust you. Lets nish up . . . I can give you more things to study about the Holocaust and Germany for this summer if you like. Jamie: Not the Holocaust, please. Interviewer: It is very sad to study. It is very sad. It probably makes your heart hurt. Jamie: Uh huh. Interviewer: Ok, so we have this has happened to Indian land. We have this map, we have this poster, we have this quote from Teddy Roosevelt, so lets come back to this question again. Was the Dawes Act successful? Jamie: I think it was. Kind of looking at this one. [He stands and points 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 nd Jamie using analogical thinking to comprehend the import of a concept in the documents he is exploring. In this case, analogy is accom- panied by a strong measure of sympathy as well. He seeks to comprehend the scale of the theft of Native American reservation lands by comparing it with statistics of human loss by murder in the Holocaust, a loss about which he cares deeply, partly because he has made a personal connection to Anne Frank. It is interesting that he also expresses sym- pathy for Annes father, not because he identies with him directly but because Jamie imagines how his own father would feel if he lost his children. Just as he recognized the otherness of the Indians and the Amish, Jamie seems to recognize an otherness of fathers. This passage is striking for another reason as well. In twelve statements during the interview, Jamie expressed care that people have been harmed by prejudice-based poli- cies and actions. His discussion of the Holocaust and the Frank family is one of the longest interview passages that seems to center on care. This in itself is perhaps not re- markable. What is remarkable is Jamies seamless shift from engaging in empathic care to answering a question using perspective recognition. To answer the question Was the Dawes 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 to the purposes for which it was intended. This forms a vivid contrast with Taras reasoning when she responded to the question, Was the Act successful?: Tara: No, I do not think by this that its successful, that its going to work. Interviewer: Tell me your thinking, why do you say that? Tara: Smashing, the engine breaking up these tribes . . . Its sweeping 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 success of the Act, and so Tara was justied in basing her answer on her inference of how Native peoples would have felt about the tribes being broken up. She also informed her answer with available evidence, with Theodore Roosevelts characterization of the Dawes Acts effect on the tribes. Both childrens use of evidence to inform their conclusions stands in contrast to Bartons ndings (1997) that fourth- and fth-grade students frequently responded to questions about the source of their information by saying, I just kinda know. Taras thinking did, however, suggest that she may engage in historical perspective recognition less reexively than does Jamie. Her answer complicates the role of care in perspective taking, for her affective response to the consequence of the Dawes Act may have hindered her from considering the original purposes of the Act as criteria for determining its success. In other ways Taras Dawes Act interview was different than Jamies as well. Tara spoke a total of 1,081 words; Jamie spoke 7,003. While quantity is not an indicator of the quality of historical thought, in this case it is directly correlated. Taras engagement in the Dawes Act interview was not only different fromJamies, but it was alsomarkedly different from her performance in the rst interview which is not discussed in detail in this article. In the rst inter- view her statements were much longer and consistently demonstrated much more accomplished contextualization efforts 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 difculty engaging in or making meaning of the evidence set than did Jamie, contextualizing only tentatively. Some possible reasons for this difference in her performance on the rst and second interviews may be that the rst interview centered on images related to share- cropping, a topic with which she was quite familiar from the BHH curriculum. This familiarity may have enhanced Taras expertise and comfort level in making meaning of the sources. That possible explanation also points toward a major difference in the types of connections the two chil- dren made to contextualize the evidence sets in the second interview. Tara made direct causal connections between her prior knowledge and the historic events in the Dawes Act document set, whereas Jamie made analogical connections with his prior knowledge. In her most powerful contextual- ization effort, Tara called on her knowledge of immigration and industrialization to infer that increased immigration created a growing demand for land, which was met by tak- ing Native land. A few documents later, Tara returned to this connection: Theyre getting rid of their extra land. Thats what this one is . . . 1911 [reads date on the land sale yer] . . . Well, I know that 1911 is when the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
214 Fillpot happened, that would be industrialization and child labor, so I think this kind of has to connect to industrialization somehow. While Jamie relied primarily on analogical connections to 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 and contextualized in the rst interview versus the almost en- tirely written nature of the second interview set leads to another interesting question. To what extent, if any, were Taras interpretations in the rst interviewmuch more pow- erful than her interpretations in the second interview be- cause the evidence was visual rather than because she had prior knowledge in sharecropping and not the Dawes Act? Perhaps counterintuitively, the less accomplished reader, Jamie, demonstrated greater power to analyze the written documents in the second interview than did Tara, the more advanced reader. Was this because he used his imagination to draw analogies that enabled him to contextualize and infer perspectives on topics he had not studied before? The evidence suggests this is a very real possibility, especially when we recognize that comparisons Jamie drew between disparate topics and time periods were not the only ways he used analogy. His references to segregation were of- ten preceded with the classic signal for a similethe word likeas he used his understanding of systemic prejudice in Jim Crow America to recognize the role of prejudice in the perspectives of the proponents of the Dawes Act. Throughout the school year, Jamie had expressed intense interest 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 systematic injustice and discrimination. The extent to which he in- vokes analogies to a topic about which he cares suggests a connection between analogy and care. The obvious con- nection in this instance is Jamies concern that our history is rife with systematic injustice. A less obvious connection between care and analogy may be that analogy is evidence of 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 mastery learning 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 we take inventory of the outcomes of the interviews, we nd that while Jamie was more successful in his efforts to ana- lyze sources on a history topic new to him, even the limited engagement that Tara achieved is perhaps remarkable in light of the difculty of the task. Both childrens interviews provide evidence that the Bringing History Home project helps children develop historical thinking skills. The diver- gences in the childrens performances, however, highlight areas to which we should attend more closely if we hope to move students closer to Jamies level of engagement and skill in analyzing sources. Specically, we turn to care and analogy, elements that were prevalent in only Jamies inter- view and that seemed to enhance his power to deploy the three 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 rst consider how these ele- ments affect sourcing. To develop this skill, we must rst teach children text attributes; that texts have authors, dates, andplaces that they were created, andthat categories of text exist, such as newspapers, letters, and laws. The next step is to introduce Stop and Source (Martin and Wineburg 2008), which is an alliterative phrase that reminds children to always inventory the attributes of a piece of evidence or book before reading the body of the text. Stop and Source is a good habit to develop, but knowing the identity or af- liation of a texts creator is not useful information unless we understand that a creator has a perspective and that the creator perspective should inuence how we interpret their text. When Mrs. Johnson introduces sourcing to her third graders, she uses care to help them grasp the concept of authorial perspective. Were she to introduce Lewis Hines in a historical vacuum before her students studied child la- bor, the concept of a photographer using his craft to end the practice might be meaningless. Because she introduces the photographer after the children have begun studying child 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- cic pictures to inuence people to end child labor. In this way, care and historical context help children develop an understanding of authorial perspective and move along a continuum of expertise in sourcing. Helping students develop skill in contextualization is a scaffolded process as well, but as the steps to develop sourc- ing expertise demonstrate, children develop some elements of contextualization and sourcing in tandem. Contextual- ization cant be divorced from understandings of specic events, gures, themes, and eras in history. It is the process of bringing those understandings to bear on new texts to develop defendable interpretations. We develop childrens skills in contextualizing by immersing them in studying events, people, movements, etc., and situating these details in relation to large themes or eras in history (Barnes 2002; Bransford 2000). By situating individuals in their specic historical times, children may be more likely to recognize the otherness of those times from their own. In third- grade classrooms, student motivation to engage in this im- mersion may be activated by ction or nonction books and/or by vividoriginal sources (BartonandLevstik2004). By learning from the earliest grades that history is a way of D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
Historical Thinking in the Third Grade 215 knowing that involves various and many texts, students are also started along the continuum to corroborate claims in a single text with information from other texts. Once children understand both specic events and orga- nizing concepts in a history topic, they may be empowered and motivated to deploy themas analogies to contextualize and understand new topics. Teachers can both model and encourage students to draw analogies with history topics andthemes they have previously studied. Some BHHteach- ers reexively reference the units their children have studied in that year and in earlier grades, helping the children re- member their prior learning anduse it toaccelerate intonew material. Cross-fertilization between history and literacy activities may provide additional tools to scaffold explicit instruction in analogical thinking. Literacy metacognitive activities in which children are encouraged to make text- to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections (Keene and Zimmerman 1997) may encourage students to develop analogical connections. Literacy visual organizers, Venn diagrams especially, may scaffold student abilities to recog- nize the limits of particular analogies, which is an essential dimension of accurate analogical thinking. Ona cautionary note, Taras default inclinationtouse her own denition of success, rather than the denition found in the evidence, to determine the success of the Dawes Act aligns with other studies that have found we need to attend to helping students support their historic explanations with evidence (Barton and Levstik 1996; Lee et al. 1993). While Taras answer is defendable as a predication of the perspec- tive of Native Americancommunities affectedby the Dawes Act, it nonetheless fails to engage the question by using the terms of intent in the legislation itself. If we want students to consider a particular perspective, Taras interview sug- gests we need to include criteria that directs them to focus on a specic dimension of a historic event. For example, if we want to engage students in considering the relationship between the goals and outcomes of the Dawes Act as they were stated in a limited set of evidence, we might ask chil- dren to list the goals for the Dawes Act, the outcomes, and then ask whether the goals matched the outcomes. We may then ask students to consider the impact of the legislation on Native Americans and the morality or justice of these outcomes. Implications for Further Study This study focused on just two childrens performance on a think-aloud interview. As such, it offers detailed insights into their historical thinking. The purpose of the interview was not to capture the general state of third-grade histor- ical thinking in the United States but to capture some of the abilities and inclinations of children who have studied a specic, sequential history curriculum for several years. As a detailed exploratory, it delineates the contours of two third-grade childrendeploying historical analysis andinter- pretive skills and provides an example of exemplary histor- ical thinking by a third-grade child. While this child is quite accomplished in historical thinking, in other measures of cognitive achievement he is average for his grade level. This does not mean we can generalize fromhis accomplishment; it means that reading and writing skills may profoundly confound efforts to assess historical thinking in individual children. This has implications for further study, not the least of which will be the difculty of collecting data from elementary schoolchildren that captures historical thinking with validity and in a sufcient quantity to meet standards of statistical signicance. In a more positive vein, this study suggests a direction for investigation that has been little explored in the schol- arship of history teaching and learning; the role of analogy in historical thinking. Are some children more than others predisposed to the sort of imaginative connection making that is analogical thinking? When used by students, is anal- ogy a catalyst for perspective recognition, as it appears to be in Jamies interview? Does analogy accelerate students understanding and contextualization of newhistoric topics and evidence, as also appears to be the case in Jamies in- terview? What sorts of specic teaching practices enhance students inclination and expertise to draw historic analo- gies? Research into these dimensions of analogy may help us 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. Adherents to developmentalism advocate using the quality of origi- nal ideas, student interests, learning approaches that center on investigation, and talent in specic domains as crite- ria for identifying gifted and talented children (Caropreso and White 1994; Renzulli 2004). Jamies performance on the Dawes Act interview suggests that young children may have domain-specic gifts not just in reading or math or science, but in historical thinking. If this is the case, and if we want to nurture this particular gift, then we are well advised to identify and support the children in which it is found. Jamie clearly demonstrates unusual gifts within the domain of historical analysis, but because he performs at an average level on standardized tests, his talent was unrecog- nized and unsupported beyond his immediate teacher and classroom. Jamies expertise in historical thinking tells us that even without formal extended learning opportunities, his intellectual needs and capabilities may have been at least partially fullled by the history education he experienced. Conclusion In an essay passage titled Historical Empathy Primar- ily Does Not Involve Imagination, Identication 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 D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
216 Fillpot doing history, I cannot accept the argument in the pas- sage title, but I dont imagine anyone in the eld of his- tory or the scholarship of teaching and learning history would quibble with the second statement, albeit with some questions to clarify the intended meaning of true in this context. 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 concepts like imagination and sympathy. What inspires the questions of cautious inquiry? What processes are involved when we closely examine historic texts? In the case of a document or an image, a close examination may yield nothing more than an exhaustive inventory of items on the page. Or it may yield a rich journey to new and deeper understand- ings, through connections with other texts, conversations, memories, and experiences. Imagination, sparked by care and channeled into analogies, carried Jamie through such a journey as he closely examined evidence of the Dawes Act. 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 schools to support such thinking. While all children may not attain Jamies expertise in the third grade, they may develop skill inhistorical analysis at their ownspeeds, if giventhe chance. Notes 1. All personal and project names in the manuscript have been 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: Falmer Press. . 2001. Empathy, Perspective Taking, and Rational Understand- ing. In Historical Empathy and Perspective-taking in the Social Studies, edited by O. L. Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and Stu- art J. Foster, 2150. London: Rowman & Littleeld. 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 Ideas about Historical Evidence. Theory and Research in Social Educa- tion, 25(4): 407430. Barton, Keith, andLinda Levstik. 2004. Teaching History for the 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 Identied Gifted and Nonidentied Children. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(5): 271279. Davis, O. L. 2001. In Pursuit of Historical Empathy. In Historical Empathy and Perspective-taking in the Social Studies, edited by O. L. Davis, Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and Stuart J. Foster, 112. London: Rowman & Littleeld. Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert Simon. 1984. Protocol Analysis: 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 Teaching American History Project: Lessons for History Educators and Historians, edited by Kelly A. Woestman and Rachel G. Ragland, 137158. NewYork: Routledge. Foster, Stuart. 2001. Historical Empathy in Theory and Practice: Some Final Thoughts. In Historical Empathy and Perspective-taking in the Social Studies, edited by O. L. Davis, Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and Stuart J. Foster, 167182. London: Rowman & Littleeld. Kearney, Julie. 2007. Evaluation of the Teaching American His- tory Project: Bringing History Home II. Iowa City, IA: The University 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: Teaching Comprehension in a Readers Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heine- mann. Lee, Peter, Roslyn Ashby, and Alaric Dickinson. 1993. Progression in Childrens 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. In How 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 by Peter 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 Chronological Thinking. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April. Little, Vivienne. 1983. What is Historical Imagination? Teaching His- tory 36: 2732. Martin, Daisy, and SamWineburg. 2008. Seeing Thinking on the Web. The History Teacher 41(3): 305319. Myson, Ian. 2006. Helping Students Put Shape on the Past: Systematic Use of Analogies to Accelerate Understanding. Teaching History 122: 2633. Portal, Christopher. 1987. Empathy as an Objective for History Teach- ing. In The History Curriculum for Teachers, edited by Christopher Portal, 89102. London: The Falmer Press. Renzulli, Joseph S. 2004. Introduction. In Identication of Students for 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. In The 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. In Knowing, 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. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ P o n t i f i c i a
U n i v e r s i d a d
C a t o l i c a
d e
C h i l e ]
a t
0 8 : 2 6
2 7
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 2
Historical Thinking in the Third Grade 217 VanSledright, Bruce. 2001. From Empathic Regard to Self- understanding: Im/positionality, Empathy, and Historical Contex- tualization. In Historical Empathy and Perspective-taking in the Social Studies, edited by O. L. Davis, Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and Stuart J. Foster, 5168. London: Rowman & Littleeld. VanSledright, Bruce, and Lisa Frankes. 2000. Concept and Strategic Knowledge Development in Historical Study: A Comparative Ex- ploration in Two Fourth-Grade Classrooms. Cognition and Instruc- tion 18: 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. Phi Delta Kappan 80(7): 488500. . 2001. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. D o w n l o a d e d