By Craig Perrier
February 17, 2014
During a recent review of the C3 framework, I found an extra precious gem located deep within the text. On page 89, the framework references the 2001 article “Learning History in School: The Impact of Course Work and Instructional Practices on Achievement” by Smith and Niemi. The passages asserts that:
“the days are long past when it was sufficient to compel students to memorize other people’s ideas and to hope that they would act on what they had memorized. If 20 years of National Assessment of Educational Progress report cards on… historical understanding mean anything, they repeatedly tell us that the success of that telling-and-compelling effort no longer works in the 21st century, if it ever did.” (89).
For me, applying this idea to history education demands that courses not be about regurgitation of historical knowledge devoid of context and without meaning. Indeed, the College Board’s revision of the AP US History course is testament to the importance of teaching skills in a history course. But, when I hear the sentiments of some educators claiming “I teach history, not children” and the common refrain “Here is all you need to know for the test” I wonder how widespread the message of Smith and Niemi has travelled as well as how accepted it is a part of instructional practices.
Discussions about what outcomes should happen in high school history course often focus on a skills/content binary which guides teachers’ view of their practice and course objectives. However, the skills versus content divide is history education’s reddest of herrings. Indeed, the two complement each other and a course that seeks to consciously do both should be emulated. For example, lessons should have both content and skills objectives and explicitly identify those for students. This type of engagement leaves a lasting imprint on students’ memories come test time by emphasizing active participation with content instead of being passive recipients. Designing lessons and using instructional strategies that support this type of instruction will involve change for some teachers’ mindset and professional identity. The good news is that the support, resources, and practices to do so are readily available. Simply put, the best history classes will use historical content to inform students about the past, foster skill sets, sharpen cognitive skills, and crystalize students’ world views.
So, where does that leave us? What harmonious path exists that marries content and skills? Among the pedagogical tools available for teachers, models of historical thinking skills have become ubiquitous in standards documents, resource providers, and contemporary research studies. Currently, a variety of historical thinking skills are promoted for teachers to use. It is important to note that although there is unique branding among these groups, considerable overlap of skills, as well as a shared emphasis on, a constructivist approach to studying, imagining, and interpreting the past, does exist.
Among the models are ones promoted by the organizations below:
- The Historical Thinking Project – http://historicalthinking.ca/
- Beyond the Bubble – https://beyondthebubble.stanford.edu/our-approach
- The College Board – http://advancesinap.collegeboard.org/english-history-and-social-science/historical-thinking
- The American Historical Association – http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2007/what-does-it-mean-to-think-historically
- National History Day – http://www.nhd.org/EightSteps.htm
The 18 indicators in history in Dimension 2 of the C3 framework (Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools) outlines another typology of historical thinking skills. Emphasizing higher order cognition, this stage of the arc of inquiry “involves going beyond simply asking, ‘What happened when?’ to evaluating why and how events occurred and developments unfolded” (p.45). To do so, the C3 framework highlights four historical skill domains teachers use to develop in their students.
- Change, Continuity, and Context
- Perspectives
- Historical Sources and Evidence
- Causation and Argumentation
In addition, C3 outlines four indicators, in grades 2, 5, 8, and 12, for each skill. These indicators recognize that developing these skills in students is a process and utilize historical content to do so.
After high school, some students will continue to study history in their college study. Most will not be history majors. Therefore, the goal of secondary education is not to make students “little historians.” Learning, especially in history class, should not be equated with memorization. Rather, students should be able to develop skills which transfer beyond the classroom. One way the C3 framework facilitates that transfer by emphasizing the teaching of history thinking concepts in contemporary education.