The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: Wiley Handbooks in Education
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1571

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

A comprehensive review of the research literature on history education with contributions from international experts The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning draws on contributions from an international panel of experts. Their writings explore the growth the field has experienced in the past three decades and offer observations on challenges and opportunities for the future. The contributors represent a wide range of pioneering, established, and promising new scholars with diverse perspectives on history education. Comprehensive in scope, the contributions cover major themes and issues in history education including: policy, research, and societal contexts; conceptual constructs of history education; ideologies, identities, and group experiences in history education; practices and learning; historical literacies: texts, media, and social spaces; and consensus and dissent. This vital resource: * Contains original writings by more than 40 scholars from seven countries * Identifies major themes and issues shaping history education today * Highlights history education as a distinct field of scholarly inquiry and academic practice * Presents an authoritative survey of where the field has been and offers a view of what the future may hold Written for scholars and students of education as well as history teachers with an interest in the current issues in their field, The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning is a comprehensive handbook that explores the increasingly global field of history education as it has evolved to the present day.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Notes on Contributors

Foreword: History Educators in a New Era

References

Acknowledgments

Introduction

History Education in the World (As Seen Froma U.S. Perspective)

Major Themes and Issues in History Education

Conclusion: Consensus and Dissent

References

Section I: Policy, Research, and Societal Contexts of History Education

1 History Curriculum, Standards, and Assessment Policies and Politics

The History of History Curriculum

Global Perspectives in the History Curriculum

Skills, Depth of Study, and Historical Thinking

Assessment

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

2 History Education Research and Practice

History Education and History Textbook Controversies in Selected Asian Contexts

Second‐Order Concepts and Progressions Around the World

Global Scholarship on Historical Consciousness and School Curriculum

Conclusions and New Directions in Research

References

3 Research Methodologies in History Education

Conceptual Approaches to History Education

Qualitative Research Methodolgies

Mixed Methods

Quantitative Research Methodologies

Reform Methodologies

Looking Forward: Researching People’s Perspectives on the Past

References

4 Narratives of Black History in Textbooks

Literature Review: K‐12 Black History in Canada and the US

Black History Textbooks in Canada and the US

Discussion

References

Section II: Conceptual Constructs of History Education

5 Historical Thinking

Historical Thinking in England

Historical Thinking in Germany

Historical Thinking in Canada

Historical Thinking in the US

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

6 Historical Reasoning: Conceptualizations and Educational Applications

Conceptualizations of Historical Reasoning

Historical Cognition: Underlying Knowledge, Beliefs, and Interest

A Sociocultural Perspective: Disciplinary History and Collective Memory

Enhancing Historical Reasoning in the Classroom

Discussion

References

7 Historical Consciousness

Historical Consciousness: A Historical Phenomenon

Historical Consciousness in Relation to Other Concepts

Historical Culture and the Everyday

Historical Cognition: Spectrum of Historical Understanding, Thinking, and Literacy

Historical Consciousness and Education

Contested Memory and the Classroom

Educational Applications of Historical Consciousness

Concluding Thoughts and Future Directions

References

8 Historical Empathy

Conceptualizing Historical Empathy

Rationales for Developing Historical Empathy in the Classroom

Critiques of Historical Empathy

Promoting Historical Empathy in the Classroom

Measurement of Historical Empathy

The Future of a Contested Construct

References

9 Historical Agency

Agency in History Education

Historical Lineage

My Story: A Search for Agency

Recent Definitions of Agency Used in History Education Research

Agency’s Shape and Content

Historiographical Work on Agency’s Shape and Content

Agency’s Content

Identity and Subjectivity

A Model of Individual and Historical Agency

Discussion: Agency Through Historical Perspective

References

10 Global and World History Education

Eurocentrism in World History Curriculum and Classrooms

World History for Identity Formation

World History for Global Awareness and Citizenship

World History for Chronological Understanding

World History’s Tools and Habits of Mind

World History Meets Standards and Accountability

Whither World History?

Challenges to Improving World History Teaching

Conclusions and Future Research

Acknowledgments

References

Section III: Ideologies, Identities, and Group Experiences in History Education

11 Critical Theory and History Education

Critical History/History Education: An Overview

Critiques of Existing Practices in History Education

The Terrain of Critical History: Visions and Applications

Representation of Race and Gender in Standards, Curricula, and Textbooks

Representations of Indigenous Peoples

Psychoanalytic Theories and Difficult Knowledge in History Education

History Education and Public Pedagogy

Conclusion and Future Directions

References

12 National, Ethnic, and Indigenous Identities and Perspectives in History Education

Unpacking Ethnicity

Students’ Identities and Historical Understanding

Conclusion

References

13 Gender and Sexuality in History Education

History and History Education

Conceptual Framework

Scope of Review and Methodology

History Education and Gender

Identity Politics and Research on Sexuality Within History Education

Gender, Sexuality, and History Education as Citizenship Education

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

14 “Difficult Knowledge” and the Holocaust in History Education

Rationales for Holocaust Education

Holocaust Curriculum

Holocaust Education Organizations

Teaching and Learning About the Holocaust

Difficult Knowledge: A Path Forward

References

Section IV: History Education: Practices and Learning

15 History Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

History Teacher Preparation

Professional Development

Teacher Learning: Where to Go From Here?

References

16 Teaching Practices in History Education

The State of History Teaching: A Brief Review

History Teaching: Inquiry and Questions

History Teaching: Disciplinary Content and Skills

History Teaching: Sources and Evidence

History Teaching: Communicating Conclusions and Taking Action

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

17 Assessment of Learning in History Education

Assessment Purposes

Learning Constructs

Assessment Design

Knowledge Matters

Measurement Matters

Possible Futures

References

18 Reconceptualizing History for Early Childhood Through Early Adolescence

Content, Time on Task, and Concepts

The Place of Intellectual Tools in Learning History

Conclusion

References

19 Teaching Controversial Historical Issues

Why Teach Controversial Issues?

Differences Between Social Issues and Historical Controversies

Types of Controversy and Aspects of Historical Understanding

Controversial Issues as Engagement with Multiperspectivity

Contexts and Challenges for Controversial Issues Teaching

Conclusion

References

Section V: Historical Literacies: Texts, Media, and Social Spaces

20 Reading in History Education

What is Historical Reading?

Historical Reading Into Classrooms: Origins

Cognitive Research on Historical Reading

Historical Reading in Classrooms: Research in the 21st Century

Discussion: Lost in Translation?

References

21 Writing and Argumentation in History Education

Research on Writing

Cognitive Processes

Connections Between Reading and Writing

Impact of Writing on Content‐Area Learning

Classroom Factors

Research on Writing and Argumentation in History Education

Characteristics of Historical Writing

Challenges in Argumentative Historical Writing

Teaching Argumentative Historical Writing

Cognitive Apprenticeships

Students’ Historical Writing

Assessing Argumentative Historical Writing

Discussion

References

22 Film Media in History Teaching and Learning

Early Scholarship on History Teaching with Film

Modern Research on History Teaching with Film

Conclusion

References

23 Digital Simulations and Games in History Education

A Digital Generation

Theoretical Framework

Digital History: A History

Digital Historical Thinking

Digital Simulations in History

Gaming in History

Considerations for the Future of Digital Simulations and Games

Conclusion

References

24 Learning History Beyond School

Museums and Historic Sites as Public Pedagogy

Epistemic Cognition of History and Historical Thinking with Museums

Museum Education Staff and School‐Museum Collaboration

Student Engagement and Learning at the Museum

Mediation at the Museum: AR and VR in Place‐Based History Education

Implications for Future Research

Acknowledgments

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 21

Table 21.1 Implications for Teaching and Doing Historical Writing

List of Illustrations

Chapter 06

Figure 6.1 Types and components of historical reasoning and individual and sociocultural resources for historical reasoning.

Chapter 09

Figure 9.1 Dimensions of historical‐individual agency, depicting the relationship between the archived and storied past, interpreted present, and projected future.

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

ii

iii

iv

ix

x

xi

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

281

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

389

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

The Wiley Handbooks in Education

The Wiley Handbooks in Education offer a capacious and comprehensive overview of higher education in a global context. These state‐of‐the‐art volumes offer a magisterial overview of every sector, subfield, and facet of the discipline—from reform and foundations to K‐12 learning and literacy. The Handbooks also engage with topics and themes dominating today's educational agenda—mentoring, technology, adult and continuing education, college access, race, and educational attainment. Showcasing the very best scholarship that the discipline has to offer, The Wiley Handbooks in Education will set the intellectual agenda for scholars, students, and researchers for years to come.

The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learningby Scott Alan Metzger (Editor), Lauren McArthur Harris (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Diversity in Special Educationby Marie Tejero Hughes (Editor), Elizabeth Talbott (Editor)

The Wiley International Handbook of Educational Leadershipby Duncan Waite (Editor), Ira Bogotch (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Researchby Meghan McGlinn Manfra (Editor), Cheryl Mason Bolick (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of School Choiceby Robert A. Fox (Editor), Nina K. Buchanan (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Home Educationby Milton Gaither (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Cognition and Assessment: Frameworks, Methodologies, and Applicationsby Andre A. Rupp (Editor), Jacqueline P. Leighton (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technologyby Nick Rushby (Editor), Daniel W. Surry (Editor)

The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning

Edited by

Scott Alan Metzger

Penn State University

Lauren McArthur Harris

Arizona State University

This edition first published 2018© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Scott Alan Metzger and Lauren McArthur Harris to be identified as the author(s) of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

Editorial Office101 Station Landing, Medford, MA 02155, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Metzger, Scott Alan, editor. | Harris, Lauren McArthur, editor.Title: The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning / edited by Scott Alan Metzger, Penn State University, Pennsylvania, US; Lauren McArthur Harris, Arizona State University, Arizona, US.Other titles: History teaching and learningDescription: 1 | New York : Wiley‐Blackwell, 2018. | Series: Wiley handbooks in education | Includes index. |Identifiers: LCCN 2017051512 (print) | LCCN 2017052401 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119100775 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119100805 (epub) | ISBN 9781119100737 (hardback)Subjects: LCSH: History–Study and teaching. | BISAC: HISTORY / Study & Teaching.Classification: LCC D16.2 (ebook) | LCC D16.2 .W49 2018 (print) | DDC 907.1–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017051512

Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © haveseen/Shutterstock

Notes on Contributors

Suhaimi Afandi is a Lecturer of Humanities and Social Studies Education at the National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Mark Baildon is an Associate Professor and Head of Humanities and Social Studies Education at the National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Sarah Brooks is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Foundations Department at Millersville University.

Anna Clark is an Associate Professor and Australian Research Council Future Fellow in the Australian Centre for Public History at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia.

Penney Clark is a Professor of Curriculum and Pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia, Canada.

Margaret Smith Crocco is a Professor and Chairperson of the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University.

Susan De La Paz is a Professor of Special Education specializing in teaching written argumentation through cognitive apprenticeships, at the University of Maryland.

Kent den Heyer is an Associate Professor of Secondary Education at the University of Alberta, Canada.

Jason L. Endacott is an Associate Professor of Social Studies Education at the University of Arkansas.

Terrie Epstein is a Professor of Education at Hunter College and Graduate Center, The City University of New York (CUNY).

Adam Friedman is an Associate Professor of Education specializing in social studies at Wake Forest University.

Brian Girard is an Associate Professor of Secondary Education at the College of New Jersey.

Tsafrir Goldberg is a Lecturer of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher Education at the University of Haifa, Israel.

S. G. Grant is a Professor of Social Studies Education at Binghamton University.

Maria Grever is a Professor of Theory and Methodology of History and Director of the Center for Historical Culture at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Lauren McArthur Harris is an Associate Professor of History Education at Arizona State University.

David Hicks is a Professor of History and Social Science Education at Virginia Tech.

LaGarrett J. King is an Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education at the University of Missouri‐Columbia.

Tim Keirn is a Lecturer of History and Liberal Studies at California State University, Long Beach.

John K. Lee is a Professor of Social Studies Education at North Carolina State University.

Stéphane Lévesque is Vice‐rector of Teaching, Research and Creation at the University of Québec à Chicoutimi, Canada.

Linda S. Levstik is a Professor Emeritus of Social Studies Education at the University of Kentucky.

Sara A. Levy is an Associate Professor of Education specializing in social studies and adolescent education at Wells College.

Alan S. Marcus is an Associate Professor of Education and a Teaching Fellow at the University of Connecticut.

Sarah McGrew is a Doctoral Candidate in History/Social Science Education at Stanford University.

Scott Alan Metzger is an Associate Professor of Social Studies Education at Penn State University.

Jeffery D. Nokes is an Associate Professor of History at Brigham Young University.

Richard J. Paxton is a Professor of Education at Pacific University.

Carla L. Peck is an Associate Professor of Social Studies Education and Associate Director (Curriculum) of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of Alberta, Canada.

Abby Reisman is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania.

Cinthia S. Salinas is a Professor and Department Chair of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Texas‐Austin.

Geerte M. Savenije is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Research Institute of Child Development and Education at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Adam J. Schmitt is a Doctoral Candidate in Teacher Education at Michigan State University.

Avner Segall is a Professor of Teacher Education at Michigan State University.

Maia Sheppard is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the George Washington University.

Peter Seixas is Professor Emeritus of Curriculum and Pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia, Canada.

Denis Shemilt is retired from Leeds Trinity University, the United Kingdom.

Crystal Simmons is an Assistant Professor of Social Studies, Multicultural, and International Education at the State University of New York at Geneseo.

Jeremy D. Stoddard is a Professor and Chair of Curriculum and Instruction at The College of William & Mary.

Stephen J. Thornton is a Professor of Social Science Education at the University of South Florida.

Brenda M. Trofanenko is an Associate Professor of Education and Canada Research Chair in Education, Culture, and Community at Acadia University, Canada.

Carla van Boxtel is a Professor of History Education at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jannet van Drie is an Assistant Professor at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Stephanie van Hover is a Professor and Department Chair of Curriculum, Instruction and Special Education at the University of Virginia.

Cory Wright‐Maley is an Associate Professor of Education at St. Mary’s University, Canada.

Foreword: History Educators in a New Era

Peter Seixas

University of British Columbia

Scott Metzger and Lauren Harris’s volume is an extraordinary testament to the robust growth and development of an international field that existed only in the most embryonic form three decades ago. The chapters herein are evidence of the remarkable number and quality of its scholars, publications, programs, and projects. In recent years, a broad, international dialogue has developed, in part based on earlier, more insular movements in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the United States, and elsewhere. Networks, communications, and conferences—including the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) Teaching History special interest group—have vastly enlarged the scope of history education research, fostered its nuance, and facilitated its depth. From this point forward, this collection of reviews will be both the authoritative survey of where the field has been and the launching pad for what should be coming next. It is appearing, however, at a dangerous moment, globally, for the liberal arts, education, and research, for democratic values generally, and for history and history education specifically.

The deep forces of destabilization include increasingly polarized wealth, migrations from desiccated equatorial regions of the globe, and new modes of communication which are increasingly rapid, pervasive, dispersed, accessible, and open to manipulation. Perversely, ascendant ideologies foster public policies that may promote the acceleration of all of these trends.

While the threat to liberal traditions is global, nowhere is it more palpable than in the US after the surprise election of Donald Trump. Does the US represent just an endpoint on a global continuum, or—with its exponential supremacy in military expenditures, its outlier status from health care to gun ownership, and its vastly disproportionate concentration of the world’s wealth—is it, in fact, exceptional? In either case, Trump’s inauguration speech provided a benchmark for the wider populist phenomenon. “From this day forward,” he promised, “a new vision will govern our land” (Inaugural Address, 2017).

Of course, a diktat does not make the past vanish. On the other hand, Trump’s advent can be seen as the beginning of a new era in the US and beyond. Trump’s radical proposals and erratic modus operandi challenged domestic institutions of governance, the press, education, the economy, environmental protection, healthcare, and welfare—as well as long‐term relative international stability achieved through post‐World War II defense alliances and trade pacts. Moreover, his words appeared to resonate among populist politicians with similar proclivities in other historically democratic nations. Le Pen in France, Farage in the UK, and Wilders in the Netherlands challenged the progressive consensus that held the European Union together. On the borders of Europe, states that since the end of the Cold War appeared to be working toward inclusion in a larger, open, Western democratic project have embraced nationalist autocracy under the leadership of Erdogan in Turkey and Putin in Russia.

On the other hand, Trump’s inaugural promise to forget the past and look only toward the future was, in some ways, nothing new. The idea that we are living in an age when the future will differ from what came before us is the condition of modernity: All that is solid, as Marx famously wrote, melts into air. From the late 18th century, in the words of Reinhard Koselleck (1985), “it became a rule that all previous experience might not count against the possible otherness of the future. The future would be different from the past, and better, to boot” (p. 267; see also Clark and Grever in Chapter 7).

François Hartog (2015) takes a further step, offering an ongoing “crisis of the present” as the defining characteristic of the era since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union, where “the distance between the space of experience and the horizon of expectation [has] been stretched to its limit, to breaking point … with the result that the production of historical time seems to be suspended” (p. 17). Writing originally in 2003, Hartog anticipated the unease of our own moment.

Many of the modern, liberal traditions that have been challenged by Trump and his fellow travelers were recently so fundamental to the generations living now that we barely gave them a passing thought. Academics hardly needed to rally to defend the idea of truth because the only threat was from some of our own poststructuralist provocateurs, delivered in prose so tortured that it had little apparent impact on the broader public sphere. When the Trump administration began in 2017 with a flurry of unsubstantiated allegations and “alternative facts” rhetoric, the game changed and the stakes were raised.

The implications for history education and its scholars, internationally, are profound. If we need to revisit our stances on the concept of truth, so too do we need to re‐examine those on research and knowledge, interpretation and evidence, community and nation, identity and difference, and citizenship and solidarity.

It is quite unremarkable to note the prominence in recent decades of “considerations of the role of sociocultural identity markers such as positionality and situatedness in knowledge production” (Crocco in Chapter 13, italics in the original; see also Seixas, 2000, pp. 28–29). But where does positionality leave knowledge, in relation to the purveyor of “alternative facts” who claims they are the truth from their own position in Memphis or Moscow? Of course, highlighting people’s varieties of experience and belief, and differences in relation to power and privilege, is at the core of the social, educational, and historical sciences. But building knowledge must ultimately emerge through dialogue, debate, and discussion as a common project, conducted on a common basis of civility and with a shared respect for evidence. In the current climate, we cannot afford to toy with separate islands of identity‐based theory, research methods, “epistemologies,” or even “ontologies.” Notions such as women’s ways of knowing and multicultural epistemologies—to the extent that they close down dialogue and debate or, conversely, open up “anything goes” as long as it is deeply held or strongly believed—pose new dangers.

The problem of teaching about historical interpretations, similarly, needs to be examined through a different lens in this political environment. Most history education scholars in recent decades, myself included, have seen a central challenge in destabilizing the notion that what is in the textbook—or any contemporary account—is the story of what happened. We have focused on the categorical difference between interpretations of the past and the past itself. That difference has not vanished nor has the importance of teaching it, but the burden is upended. That is, our central challenge will have to focus on helping students to understand the limits of interpretation, the constraints that bind what we say to the evidence that we have, and the importance of defending interpretations that are supported by the weight of evidence, not as just one among many possible ways of seeing things.

Insofar as contemporary political, economic, and social conditions start to shift popular culture’s grand narratives of nation and world civilizations, there are further implications for history educators. The triumph of Trump, the ballot on Brexit, and the popularity of Le Pen have made visible a tectonic shift in popular narrative templates (to use Wertsch’s, 2004, term). As with geology, the hidden forces of change have long been at work beneath the surface, building pressure. The earthquake that is Trump rattled the world with a dire picture of Americans wracked by pain, carnage, depletion, disrepair, and decay, robbed by post‐War allies, and impoverished by parasites within. Le Pen and Wilders imagined their countries overrun and cultures besieged by non‐White hordes. Those pictures apparently resonated with a large number of their fellow citizens. How will their populist vision affect the academic history and history education communities, whose scholars have focused on the flaws and cracks in the grand narratives: in the US, imperialism, the economic foundations of slavery, genocidal policies toward Native Americans, the persistence of Jim Crow since Reconstruction, the growth of economic inequality since the 1970s; and in Europe, the history of colonialism and, varying with national setting, collusion with Nazis during the Holocaust? Perhaps we will find ourselves countering nationalist distortions by a new appreciation for a (qualified) narrative—open, of course, to reasoned critique—of progressive opportunity and open democracy that long have been the staple of school teaching and textbooks.

Many history education researchers have focused on students’ gender, sexual, and racialized identities as fundamental elements in students’ understanding of the past. Sociocultural theory, in the context of history education research, examines connections between a community’s collective memory and students’ construction of their own identities. Vice versa, it examines how students’ social location shapes their historical understanding. It has thus provided explanations for many minority students’ alienation from school history and prescriptions for a revised history curriculum that could foster more effectively their processes of historical orientation. Our focus on the concept of historical significance has similarly highlighted the differences that arise in various identity‐groups’ understandings of the past. Events and people who occupy a key role in the collective memory of Los Angeles Latinos sit in the margins of that of the descendants of blueblood Bostonians. In our new circumstances, history educators may logically shift their focus to look more forcefully toward fostering the larger narratives that will pull these memories into focus with each other and build toward common understandings. Again, this is not a new idea, but one that will need renewed attention.

Mark Lilla (2016) has argued that the politics of identity and consciousness of diversity have displaced liberals’ other concerns with class, war, the economy, and the environment (i.e., the common good). He suggests that liberal teachers should “refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history” (Lilla, 2016). David Frum (2017) offers further rationale for such a refocus, in view of the looming threat of arbitrary, autocratic orders in the US and Europe. He contrasts the personalized nature of autocratic power with the respect for ongoing institutions, traditional norms, and the rule of law that provide the basis for managing power relationships and reform in democratic nation‐states. As history educators, we have shaped our research agendas and policy prescriptions in an environment where we could largely take those institutional foundations for granted. Accordingly, our work has tended to focus on recognition of historically marginalized communities and movements that challenged the exercise of state power. While these continue to be crucial, they now need to be set within the context of the glaring erosion of the democratic institutions and values that have made reform possible.

History educators will thus have to amend our potential contributions to the new political culture. This does not mean shuffling systemic racism, colonialism, homophobia, and gender inequality back into obscurity much less silence, but it does bring with it a call to remember the promises and obligations of democratic rule, the achievements of a peaceful post‐WWII European system, the importance of institutional norms, and, not least, the moral virtues and qualities of character that enable both good leadership and active participation in a democratic state. Most of us have not foregrounded these issues, which were prominent in my own “citizenship education” in the 1950s and 1960s: Now we must. The new California History–Social Science Framework exemplifies the new citizenship education:

Students learn the kind of behavior that is necessary for the functioning of a democratic society in which everyone’s fundamental human rights are respected…. They should learn how to select leaders and how to resolve disputes rationally. They should learn about the value of due process in dealing with infractions, and they should learn to respect the rights of the minority…. Students will gain an appreciation of how necessary an informed electorate is in making possible a successful democracy.

(Slutsky 2017, p. 7, quoting from the Framework)

Where we might once have dismissed such language as bland bromides, we can no longer assume these understandings as an unspoken baseline.

David Brooks (2017) applied Tönnies’s bifurcation, gemeinschaft/gesellschaft, to the conundrum of the new populism. “All across the world,” Brooks wrote,

we have masses of voters who live in a world of gemeinschaft: where relationships are personal, organic and fused by particular affections. These people define their loyalty to community, faith and nation in personal, in‐the‐gut sort of ways. But we have a leadership class and an experience of globalization that is from the world of gesellschaft: where systems are impersonal, rule based, abstract, indirect and formal.

Into this gap stepped Trump, “the ultimate gemeinschaft man” (in Brooks’s words), making appointments more on the basis of personal loyalty and relationship than on relevant expertise or experience, as he took control of the levers of the world’s most powerful military, administrative, and bureaucratic (gesellschaft) enterprise.

But historians and history education scholars have similarly welcomed the introduction of the personal and the local in recent years. In the large‐scale surveys of adults’ interests in and uses of history, researchers remarked on people’s engagement with personal histories and proximate heritage (Rosenzweig & Thelen, 1998; Ashton & Hamilton, 2003; Conrad et al., 2013). These people supported a rationale for history education and museology that was “familial, experiential, and tactile” (in the words of Clark and Grever in Chapter 7), one that pulled toward the local, personal, and place‐based—and away from concerns with states, institutions, and the longue durée.

Ironically, there is a peculiar parallel here to the populist denigration of distant experts and cosmopolitan elites. The lineage from social history through the “cultural turn” to memory studies has a populist trajectory: The past belongs not just to expertly trained historians but also, in Carl Becker’s term, to “everyman.” Similarly, post‐Foucauldian academics had a tendency to see historiography as no more than one among many ways to understand the past, the use of historical sources just another kind of myth, and the use of reason just another act of faith, moreover one whose undeserved position of power occluded the rightful voice of the nonexpert, the untrained, and the antiscientific. This position may increasingly become an intellectual indulgence we cannot afford.

Most of the chapters in this volume were drafted before the inauguration of Trump. Nevertheless, there is plenty of language that faces our new world circumstances clearly. Two quick examples will suffice. Goldberg and Savenije (in Chapter 19) advise “in a climate of ‘post truth’ and mudslinging, of political polarization and delegitimization, it behooves us as educators to uphold a sane, rational, and evidence‐based alternative.” Margaret Crocco’s conclusion (in Chapter 13) is similarly well crafted to integrate our important attention to diversity within a universalist “human condition”:

As a matter of social justice, but equally as a matter of truth‐telling, history education would be well served by greater attention to gender and sexuality as part of its research agenda so as to illuminate the many facets of the human condition now obscured by the partialities of traditional and limited perspectives on the past too often encountered within history education.

It is much easier for a retired person to question the intellectual stances upon which a career was built. Perhaps what I have written here represents only a subtle change anyway, in the positions I have always defended. Nevertheless, this is a historical moment at which academics and intellectuals need to take stock. Of the liberal national and international order, what is worth defending even if we never felt called upon to defend it before—indeed, even if we built our careers criticizing it?

Will the field of history education write itself into the margins of relevance in this new era, or will it continue to move toward the central place that it deserves? The answer depends, in large part, on the directions taken by those whose work is represented in the pages that follow.

References

Ashton, P., & Hamilton, P. (2003). At home with the past: Background and initial findings from the national survey.

Australian Cultural History, 23

, 5–30.

Brooks, D. (2017, January 20). The internal invasion.

New York Times

. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com

Conrad, M., Ercikan, K., Friesen, G., Letourneau, J., Muise, D., Northrup, D., & Seixas, P. (2013).

Canadians and their pasts

. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Frum, D. (2017, March). How to build an autocracy.

The Atlantic

. Retrieved from

https://www.theatlantic.com

Hartog, F. (2015).

Regimes of historicity: Presentism and experiences of time

(S. Brown, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/hart16376

Inaugural Address: Trump’s full speech (2017, January 21).

CNN

. Retrieved from

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump‐inaugural‐address/

Koselleck, R. (1985).

Futures past

(K. Tribe, Trans.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Lilla, M. (2016, November 18). The end of identity liberalism.

New York Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com

Rosenzweig, R., & Thelen, D. (1998).

The presence of the past: Popular uses of history in American life

. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! Die kinder! or Does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.),

Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives

(pp. 19–37). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Slutsky, B. (2017). Developing an engaged citizenry.

The Source: A Publication of the California History–Social Science Project (Winter)

, pp. 6–7.

Wertsch, J. (2004). Specific narratives and schematic narrative templates. In P. Seixas (Ed.),

Theorizing historical consciousness

(pp. 49–62). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Acknowledgments

The editors of this handbook wish to thank Henry Codjoe (Dalton State University) for providing external peer review for Chapter 4 and its original research. Special appreciation is extended to contributors Anna Clark, Peter Seixas, and Brenda Trofanenko for providing feedback on other chapters in this volume and Sara Levy, Carla L. Peck, and Jeremy Stoddard for their initial review of this project.

We are deeply indebted to Arizona State University graduate research assistant Stephanie F. Reid for her invaluable help with this volume.

We also want to thank our Wiley editorial team—Haze Humbert, Janani Govindakutty, Sakthivel Kandaswamy, and especially our patient copy‐editor Giles Flitney—for their expert assistance. Special thanks to Jayne Fargnoli for all her support in getting this project off the ground.

Introduction: History Education in (and for) a Changing World

Scott Alan Metzger1 and Lauren McArthur Harris2

1 Penn State University

2 Arizona State University

As Peter Seixas observes in the Foreword, the growth of history education as its own research field over the past three decades is striking. This is due in no small part to pioneering scholars who, in the 1980s and early 1990s, examined teaching, learning, and thinking specifically for history—including Denis Shemilt (1983) and Ros Ashby and Peter Lee (1987) in the United Kingdom; Peter Seixas (1993, 1994) in Canada; and Sam Wineburg, Suzanne Wilson, and Linda Levstik in the United States (Levstik, 1986; Levstik & Pappas, 1987, 1992; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988, 1993; Wineburg, 1991; Wineburg & Wilson, 1988, 1991). After the early 1990s, more researchers—many of whom are cited in the chapters that follow—built on this foundation and expanded the field in new directions. By the turn of the 21st century, the field had developed enough to warrant specialized edited volumes in North America (e.g., Stearns, Seixas, & Wineburg, 2000) and the UK (e.g., Arthur & Phillips, 2000).

The expanding international scope of the field is just as remarkable. Prolific research on history education is being produced by scholars from around the globe, including Australia, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Even more work is being done in other countries and in languages other than English, and future technology should make crossing the language barrier easier. Today scholars around the world contribute to a truly international literature base on history education (Carretero, Berger, & Grever, 2017; Köster, Thünemann, & Zülsdorf‐Kersting, 2014).

A central force in the development of this field is the Teaching History Special Interest Group (SIG) of American Educational Research Association (AERA). Formed in 1997 by signatories including Wineburg, Wilson, Seixas, Levstik, and Lee, the Teaching History SIG has been instrumental in cementing history education as a distinct field of scholarly inquiry through the research of its founding members and a whole generation of scholars following them. Conferencing in the US and Canada, the Teaching History SIG has benefited from an influx of international participation in recent years that should continue to grow in the future.

As former executive officers of AERA’s Teaching History SIG, we are honored to have had the opportunity to propose this International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning to Wiley and serve as its editors. The project brings together a diverse range of veteran, mid‐career, and promising new scholars to review, synthesize, and discuss the research literature on history teaching and learning from the past to the present moment. The product is a comprehensive reference work that we hope will be of service to scholars and students of history education worldwide in the years to come.

History Education in the World (As Seen Froma U.S. Perspective)

The growth of this field is even more impressive considering that history has been a widely recognized school subject in most places for only a little over 100 years. While “history” loosely conceived has been in schools at least since the days of primers using historical topics to help students learn to read, or reading Caesar and Cicero to learn Latin, actual study of the past was (at most) a secondary goal. The emergence of historical inquiry as an academic profession in German, British, and North American universities established history as a discipline by the 1870s (see Novick, 1988), which then filtered into the familiar curriculum of common schools by the 1890s. Throughout the 20th century, this conception of history as a school subject spread to other parts of the world influenced by U.S. or Western European systems.

From its early days, history has had to contend with other subjects for instructional time and curricular value, and proponents have had to find some way to present it as useful. Perhaps it should come as little surprise that history education in public schools was connected to nation building virtually from inception. For example, most 19th‐century textbooks from the US (particularly after the Civil War) placed great weight on patriotic socialization, with reverence for established political values of U.S. society (Elson, 1964). Whether history as a subject should aim to inculcate patriotism (or “nationalism” as some preferred to call it in the years after the World Wars) became a question of intense debate in the US and other countries during the Cold War era—and perhaps even more so in our current era of globalization.

Educators from the 19th century to the present have advocated other purposes for the teaching of history. There is a long tradition of history for liberal, humanistic, even humanitarian purposes. Proponents of the work of Harold Rugg in the 1930s, then and since, have included history in education for social reconstruction (Riley, 2006). These goals were not always seen as oppositional to patriotic purposes. Nonetheless, since World War II and European decolonization, history curriculum often has been in the political crossfire between liberals and conservatives, revisionists and traditionalists, and the global and the national.

Political debates heated up as educational reform efforts including history curriculum expanded beyond the localized level. In the US, national attention to history education was raised by professional historians participating with Paul Gagnon and the Bradley Commission on History in Schools (1989). In 1989 and the early 1990s, the National Governors Association’s education summits put into motion the standards‐based reform (accountability) movement that has come to dominate the educational agenda in the US, as well as other countries. As history standards became, at least in part, a national question, political stakes over “whose history?” would determine the standards led to rancorous arguments in the US involving educational organizations, conservative critics, national media, and even Congress (Symcox, 2002). Political fights over history were not unique to the US—similar “history wars” were waged in Australia during the 1990s and early 2000s (Macintyre & Clark, 2004).

In the aftermath, the Common Core movement in the US (2010–2015) relegated history and social studies to an ancillary role within literacy and writing. It is not clear how many of the 50 states have appetite for renewed political battles that come from trying to revise history content standards. History (and social studies broadly) remains largely untested (or tested without formally counting) in the Common Core environment. Whether this lack of high‐stakes testing attention is a good or bad thing—autonomy or irrelevance—is ambiguous for history educators.

In the US and many other countries today, history in schools is at another crossroads. What should history education aim to do for students who are going to be citizens of a national polity but also live in a globalized world and economy, who bring to school their own sociocultural backgrounds and received traditions but who will be interacting with culturally diverse global populations? How this difficult question is addressed in policy unavoidably privileges certain political and cultural values over others. Perhaps as a consequence, history education today is being asked to do a lot of different, at times contending, things. Even within this handbook, we see history education being asked to:

motivate students for civic engagement and social justice;

challenge historical stereotypes of and limitations imposed by race, gender, and sexual orientation;

explicitly include more focus on Black diaspora, Indigenous perspectives, and these peoples’ unique historical experiences;

develop students’ historical thinking skills and capacity to understand themselves as historical beings who are shaped by the past and will contribute to the present and future;

develop in students empathy that allows for understanding different contexts in the past but also caring how the past affects people in the present;

represent big ideas of global history;

prepare students to think, read, and write in ways associated with historical scholars;

engage in evidence‐based historical interpretation of causation and significance;

train students to critique uses of history in media, museums, and cultural sites.

Not all of these goals are in conflict by any means. However, many emphasize quite different elements, even conceptions, of what history is. They certainly do not run the full gamut of what all political stakeholders, to say nothing of parents and students, might want.

Major Themes and Issues in History Education

This handbook is organized around what we see as the major themes and issues predominant in the field of history education over the past 30 years and with an eye to the future. Below we articulate how these themes and issues are grouped in this handbook in order to illustrate why these chapter topics were selected.

Policy, Research, and Societal Contexts of History Education

A useful way to discuss the evolution of the field is by starting with the contexts in which it occurred—the policy environment in which the purposes, curriculum, and materials of history education are decided; changing currents of research methodologies; and socio/political milieu that shapes how history education is implemented in schools and experienced by students. Taken together, these contexts constitute a rich lens for exploring other elements, perspectives, and experiences in history education.

The educational policy environment, both in the US and internationally, has changed radically over the past three decades with the rise of standards‐based reforms, accountability testing, and educational outcomes in global competition. History has not been immune to these developments. In Chapter 1, Tim Keirn overviews U.S. experiences with history in school curriculum both prior to and especially since the 1980s. In Chapter 2, Mark Baildon and Suhaimi Afandi offer global perspectives on history education, curriculum, and research through selected countries in Europe and Asia.

Research approaches available to scholars of history education have proliferated considerably since the 1980s. As narrowly behaviorist orientations gave way to alternative psychological techniques, doors opened to the development of new qualitative and, more rarely, quantitative methods, mixed methodologies, methods utilizing technology, and approaches grounded in reform advocacy. In Chapter 3, Terrie Epstein and Cinthia S. Salinas survey research techniques and their purposes in history education.

Conflicts and anxieties in broader society and the political discourses that flow from them inevitably influence school curriculum and educational materials. Since the acceleration of European decolonization and the end of legal segregation in the US in the 1960s, racism and racial tensions have remained among the most persistent and sensitive social issues. Scholars increasingly have called for history education to include more racially diverse perspectives and experiences and attend to the needs of historically marginalized racial identities. In Chapter 4, LaGarrett J. King and Crystal Simmons review critical literature on the treatment of race in history textbooks in the US and Canada. They also offer original content analysis of select Black History textbooks from North America to substantiate their argument for more explicit integration of Black historical experiences into school history curriculum.

Conceptual Constructs of History Education

One of the most important accomplishments of the history education field is the development of robust conceptual constructs for studying and describing what teachers and learners do with history. Rather than just loosely borrowing concept labels from the historical discipline, researchers of history education have labored to articulate specialized concepts that encompass different modes of cognition, instructional practices, and educational purposes. These terminologies have proven exceptionally powerful for advancing nuanced understanding, but their distinct meanings—what precisely distinguishes each term from the others—are not altogether clear. Different terms have emerged or tend to be used in different parts of the globe. Meanings often overlap.

The chapters in Section II ambitiously address the clarity problem by reviewing worldwide research literature on the field’s important conceptual constructs and discerning what elements and features might define them. These efforts should help the field as a whole reach, if not formal definitions, at least recognized distinctions and clearer understandings of what they look like applied to educational practice. In Chapter 5, Stéphane Lévesque and Penney Clark examine what is arguably the field’s key construct since the 1980s: historical thinking. In chapter 6, Carla van Boxtel and Jannet van Drie discuss historical reasoning. In Chapter 7, Anna Clark and Maria Grever explore historical consciousness.

These three constructs manifest implications for other psychological, interpretive, and classification categories. Other chapters in this section expand on these constructs to clarify another relevant concept or classification. In Chapter 8, Jason L. Endacott and Sarah Brooks address what in the 21st century is one of the most widely used concept labels in history education: historical empathy. In Chapter 9, Kent den Heyer takes on a term that rose to prominence in historiography in the 1990s and analyzes how it applies to history education: historical agency. In Chapter 10, Brian Girard and Lauren McArthur Harris look at larger‐scale conceptualizations of history beyond the traditional regional or national scale and examine what constitutes world or global history.

Ideologies, Identities, and Group Experiences in History Education

Since the social and intellectual revolutions in the 1960s and 1970s, antiracism, postcolonialism, liberation, and other social justice theories have exerted substantial influence on academia, including historiography and history education. Neo‐Marxian/critical‐structuralist theories were among the first, predating the 1960s at least in historiography. The postmodern or “literary” turn, which gained prominence in historiography by the 1980s and attracted some scholars in social studies and history education, offered poststructural lenses for critiquing how race, class, sex/gender, and other identities were typically operationalized in schools and curriculum. Since the 1990s, critical race theory has provided a framework for scholarship on racialized experiences in history.

Drawing on these philosophical lenses, a growing body of history education scholarship focuses on nondominant/historically marginalized identities. Critical theory, particularly in conjunction with postmodern/poststructural perspectives, has been a provocative force in the social studies as a whole. In Chapter 11, Avner Segall, Brenda M. Trofanenko, and Adam J. Schmitt survey the influence that critical theory has had on history education and research. Communities of scholars also have formed to argue for history education to more explicitly attend to other identities or group experiences. In Chapter 12, Carla L. Peck reviews the literature on ethnicity and Indigenous identities and experiences in history education. In Chapter 13, Margaret Smith Crocco draws attention to the literature on sex/gender and sexuality responsive to gay and transgender movements and queer theory.

Considering how to integrate social identities and different groups’ historical experiences into curriculum and classroom teaching can be difficult and even potentially painful when the experiences involve brutal violence. The historical experiences of Jews and other victims in the Holocaust are a powerful example. No small number of states/provinces and countries around the world mandate Holocaust education in schools, but teaching the Holocaust can lead to difficult discussions of historical guilt, victimization, ambiguous moral lessons, and uncertain future obligations. In Chapter 14, Sara A. Levy and Maia Sheppard take on the problem of “difficult knowledge” in history education and specifically in regard to the Holocaust.

History Education: Practices and Learning

All who have engaged in teaching history in schools have pushed up against perennial problems, such as the subject’s reputation for being dull. Youths today, like their parents before them, may complain that history mostly is memorizing names and dates (even if the particulars of what to memorize change with political and social shifts over time). There is reason for concern that the rise of high‐stakes standardized assessments and teaching‐to‐the‐test pressures may exacerbate longstanding overemphasis on discrete factual mastery. History education research over the past three decades has increasingly challenged simplistic approaches that excessively rely on content memorization—particularly without intellectually robust application. Collectively, research in the field envisions practices that are more stimulating and require higher‐order thinking—that present history as ongoing discourses about what happened in the past, why the past happened the way it did, and what the past means.

Schoolteachers will be central to the implementation of any new ideas for improving students’ experiences with history in the classroom. In Chapter 15, Stephanie van Hover and David Hicks review research on the preparation and professional development of teachers of history. What occurs in schools—curriculum and teacher practices—is another perennial question for the field. In Chapter 16, S. G. Grant recounts curricular developments in the US in the 21st century to lay groundwork for examining how teachers teach history in terms of the “Inquiry Arc” of the College, Career, and Civic Life Framework, a recent U.S. guideline document for state social studies standards. How student learning can be known and evaluated is a major issue of long standing for the field. In Chapter 17, Denis Shemilt offers a look back at what has been done in the past to speculate on what approaches to assessing student learning should be developed in the future.

Intellectually powerful history learning will not emerge suddenly in late adolescence without prior exposure—yet often history in elementary grades seems to receive little attention (perhaps by both schools and researchers). In Chapter 18