Promoting Civic Competence through Problem-based History Learning Environments
John W. Saye
Auburn University
Thomas Brush
Indiana University
Presented at the 3rd annual R. Freeman Butts Institute on Civic Learning in Teacher Education.
May 18, 2003. Authors may be contacted at: sayejoh@auburn.edu; tbrush@indiana.edu
Portions of this work were supported by grants from the National Endowment for the
Humanities, Apple Computer, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Auburn University
College of Education, and Indiana University College of Education.
Promoting Civic Competence
2
Promoting Civic Competence through
Problem-based History Learning Environments
Abstract
This paper presents a civic rationale for focusing pre-collegiate history study around enduring
societal issues. We discuss the challenges that problem-based historical inquiry poses for
teachers and learners. Finally, we describe and exemplify how a technology-supported learning
environment can mitigate those challenges.
The practice of responsible democratic citizenship requires formidable knowledge,
abilities, and dispositions. Citizens must use these resources in concert to reason about the issues
of democratic life. Numerous studies suggest that many Americans lack the civic capital
necessary for an effective citizenry. To address these deficiencies, civic educators should attend
more closely to the complex challenges associated with developing requisite citizenship
resources. These challenges should focus our efforts in all social studies courses in the school
curriculum. In this paper, we examine the challenges to civic reasoning and discuss a curriculum
initiative, the Persistent Issues in History (PIH) Workshop, designed to address those issues in
the study of history.
Rationale for the PIH framework as a curriculum organizer for history
Pre-collegiate history study has been promoted to achieve a wide variety of goals from
developing national identity and patriotism to developing sophisticated understandings about the
nature and practice of historical inquiry. We argue that history study must be more than either a
bland recitation of celebratory stories or a rigorous exercise in interpreting texts and constructing
Promoting Civic Competence
3
historical narratives. The first goal may produce unreflective jingoists with superficial historical
understandings. Although the latter goal of disciplined inquiry has merit, school history has a
broader mandate than reproducing academic history study.
History remains the most commonly taught social studies course in the 6-12 school
curriculum. To justify its prominence, pre-collegiate history study must contribute to democratic
citizenship (Levstik & Barton, 2001). More precisely, it must promote civic competence: The
ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally
diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world (NCSS, 1994). We advocate a Persistent
Issues in History curriculum framework that organizes pre-collegiate history study around
fundamental, enduring questions that confront societies throughout time and across cultures.
Such study should develop citizens who can critically weigh evidence and use knowledge
generated from sound historical analysis to inform their decisions about these essential societal
questions.
The rationale for organizing history study around persistent societal issues arises directly
from the need to prepare competent citizens (Massaro, 1993; Oliver & Shaver, 1966; Patrick &
Vontz, 2001). A curriculum for developing civic competence must consider the nature of the
society for which we prepare citizens. Our framework is based upon several assumptions about
the nature of a constitutional democratic republic and the requirements for civic competence in
such a society:
(1) Democratic societies hold as their core value human dignity, the belief that all people
are worthy of equal respect and treatment.
(2) To protect human dignity, democratic societies must promote pluralism and freedom
of choice.
Promoting Civic Competence
4
(3) Pluralistic democratic societies are innately conflictual because different subcultures
will see the “good” differently (Oliver & Shaver, 1966).
(4) Because democratic societies are conflictual, democracy is never a finished project. It
should not be taught as an accomplishment that simply needs protection and
maintenance. Instead, democracy is an aspiration; “an ongoing, creative struggle to
work out a way of living together fairly, freely, and equally.” It is a path that we try to
walk together (Parker, 2001).
(5) To walk the democratic path as adults, students need:
(a) Meaningful encounters with the major recurrent public problems with which
societies struggle, and
(b) An analytical framework for examining the issues that must be addressed in
arriving at defensible problem solutions.
Thus, a concern for ethical issues guides us in conceptualizing a civically oriented history
curriculum. Although we do not ignore chronology and context, we deliberately focus our
attention on historical events and phenomena that raise persisting, fundamental questions about
the social good.
The applicability of this approach to organizing history study is most clear in U.S.
history. Controversies about constitutional democracy permeate U. S. history from before the
inception of the republic until the present. Massaro (1993) has noted, “our national constitutional
tradition is one of perpetual struggle to balance multiple competing concerns.” These struggles
persist not only because of competing subcultures but also because of inherent tensions between
the fundamental values that comprise what has been called “the American Creed” (Myrdall,
1944; Newmann & Oliver, 1970) (Figure 1). By emphasizing carefully chosen critical episodes
Promoting Civic Competence
5
in our nation’s history and the diverse perspectives that may be brought to the interpretation of
these events, students confront the complexity of fundamental questions about constitutional
democracy in historical contexts that demonstrate the persistent nature of these issues (Patrick,
2000).
Figure 1. American Creedal Values.
Related Values
Efficiency
Brotherhood
Competition/
rugged individualism
Cooperation
American Creedal Values
Charity
Mercy
1. Worth & dignity of individual
2. Equality
3. Inalienable rights: Life, Liberty,
Property, Pursuit of happiness
4. Consent of governed
5. Majority rule
6. Rule of law
7. Due process of law
8. Community & national welfare
9. Rights to freedom of: speech, press,
religion, assembly, and private
association
Loyalty
Competence
and expertise
Integrity of
personal
conscience
Perseverance/
Hard work
Honesty
Nonviolence
Compromise
Adapted from Newmann & Oliver (1970).
Although this approach is rooted in the mission to prepare democratic citizens, it may be
applied to world as well as U.S. history study. Constitutional democracies hold no monopoly
over persistent questions of how to live together in the world. Citizens across the world have
faced issues such as when authority may be legitimately challenged and what is the most just
way to distribute a society’s resources (Oliver, Newmann, & Singleton, 1992). In a recent effort
Promoting Civic Competence
6
to conceptualize a curriculum for educating world citizens, scholars from a variety of cultures
agreed on six ethical areas of concern that might focus a multinational curriculum. These
included widely applicable values such as equity, justice, and privacy (Parker, Ninomiya, &
Cogan, 1999). Furthermore, in an interdependent world, citizens of constitutional democracies
must understand and make decisions about how they should interact with those who do not share
their commitments. U. S. students will likely approach world affairs from a lens that privileges
core principles and values of constitutional democracy. However, a determined effort to present
multicultural perspectives should allow these assumptions about the good to be examined and
debated in ways that promote deeper understandings about the motivations of actors in different
places and times while also giving students a better grounded framework for making decisions in
their own circumstances.
In addition to the philosophical rationale for preparing competent citizens, pragmatic
reasons exist for the PIH framework. Common approaches to pre-collegiate history have been
ineffective for the majority of students. Most students remain disengaged with the subject and
resist thinking seriously about the content. Test results attest to how little they retain from their
coursework (e.g., Ravitch & Finn, 1987; Smith & Neimi, 2001). Currently, most history
classrooms feature exposure to broad, superficial surveys of historical facts. Teachers work
futilely to try to cover the widest possible swath of the past, and students see little purpose for -or relationships among -- the myriad facts and dates they are expected to absorb. The coverage
approach leaves little time for thinking deeply about the meaning of any historical event, seeing
connections across time, or engaging in “doing history”. However, given twice the time currently
allotted to history, we could not fit all that is worth knowing into the history curriculum
Promoting Civic Competence
7
(Newmann, 1988). Choices must be made about what is included, and some reasonable criteria
for those choices must be provided.
A focus on essential, persistent issues provides teachers with guidance in conceptualizing
a cohesive course of study for the year and selecting content and activities for individual lessons
and units. A persistent issues framework helps students see direction and authentic worth in their
history study. Instead of “one damn thing after another(FitzGerald, 1979),” history gains context,
continuity, and purpose as students wrestle with a fundamental issue in a given historical
instance and connect that instance to its broader societal context in ways that deepen students
understanding of the challenges of democratic life. Table 1 illustrates how the PIH framework
might be used to focus history units of study.
Promoting Civic Competence
8
Table 1. Sample Focus Questions for a PIH Approach to 6-12 History.
Persistent Issue
When are citizens justified
in resisting governmental
authority?
What actions are justified in
the interest of national or
community security?









When are nations justified
in intervening in the affairs
of other countries?
What policies should the
government pursue to
promote social and
economic justice?










Representative Topics
American Revolution
English Civil War
U.S. Abolitionist
Movement
Palestinian Intifada
Native Americans
Chinese Isolationism
under the Ming Dynasty
U.S. Labor Struggles
Rise of Fascism
U.S. WWII Homefront
Policies
Crusades
War of 1812
Mexican War
WWII
Vietnam
Reconstruction
Rise of Big Business
Irish Potato Famine
New Deal
Great Society
Topic-Specific Issue
Revolution: Were the
colonists justified in
revolting from Great
Britian?
Native Americans: Were
European-American
policies towards Native
Americans justified?
Mexican War: Should the
U.S. be praised or
condemned for its foreign
policy towards Mexico?
New Deal: What should the
government do to protect
the public interest in a free
market economy?
Rationale for PBHI as mode of disciplined inquiry
Many history education reformers advocate history study that focuses on authentic
historical inquiry, “…the ability of students to read and interpret various forms of text and to
construct their own representations of the social world.” (Sexias, 2001). Sexias argues that
engaging students in the interrogation of texts challenges them to address issues of power,
culture, and difference. However, historical inquiry as pursued by academic historians is unlikely
either to engage adolescent learners consistently or to accomplish fully the civic mission that we
set for pre-collegiate history study.
Promoting Civic Competence
9
Interpreting text is a vital activity; but we must be careful not to confuse means with
ends. Students should be able to construct their own representations of the social world. At issue
is the context in which teachers challenge them to undertake such constructions. If interpreting
text to construct narratives is the organizing focus for historical study, students are unlikely to
see beyond the immediate texts with which they work to perceive larger problems of power,
culture, and difference or, more importantly, to be prepared to address them in a responsible,
informed manner. Text interpretation and narrative construction as school history activities
should be means to a civic end. That end should be reasoned decision-making about enduring
social problems. We propose a hybrid mode of inquiry--problem-based historical inquiry--as the
means to study such problems.
Problem based historical inquiry (PBHI) differs from what may occur in standard
historical inquiry in three ways:
1. The overarching purpose for inquiry is to reason about a persisting societal problem.
2. Inquiry incorporates other ways of knowing, particularly political philosophy and
moral reasoning.
3. Analogical reasoning is used to refine reasoning about an issue about problem
solutions.
A standard historical inquiry problem might engage students in investigating conflicting
evidence and constructing narratives about the events and causes of the Boston Massacre
(VanSledright, 2002). The question represents an ill-structured problem for which multiple
defensible answers might be proposed. However, it lacks an essential criterion that we seek in
problem selection. In the PIH curricular framework, each unit of study begins with the explicit
posing of a persistent societal problem that provides the motivating context for disciplined
Promoting Civic Competence
10
inquiry. Although standard historical inquiry does not preclude consideration of ethical
questions, such questions are not typically the central purpose of the investigation.
A PBHI problem from the period of the Boston Massacre might focus on the persistent
question: What actions are justified to bring about social change? Unit activities would engage
students in PBHI to explore the featured problem as it is instantiated in the particular historical
period of study: Were colonists justified in using the tactics that they chose? In the process,
students should develop foundational knowledge, clarify key concepts, and confront pertinent
value issues. As a culminating unit activity, students propose problem solutions and defend them
with historical evidence.
PBHI demands historical thinking, but because we focus on the examination of
fundamental civic questions, PBHI also necessarily draws upon moral reasoning, knowledge of
political philosophy and government, and other pertinent knowledge bases and modes of inquiry.
We hope that by examining problematic issues as they have arisen in the past, students will gain
certain habits of mind that will serve them well in making decisions about similar issues in the
present and the future. Among those are an appreciation for the tentativeness of factual claims
and an awareness of the multiple perspectives that different individuals bring to their
interpretations of an event—both figures from the time of the event and those who seek to form
judgments about a past event. Assisting students in establishing historical empathy, context, or
perspective are important elements of PBHI. However, we regard the aforementioned
epistemological habits of mind as prerequisites both for complex historical thinking and for
drawing wisdom from the past to inform contemporary decision-making about social issues.
PBHI units center on persuasive and dialectical reasoning. Teachers probe student
reasoning about the ethical issues that focus our units to see if they can make historically
Promoting Civic Competence
11
plausible arguments that reflect an understanding of at least two perspectives about an issue.
Because students confront a problem that has not been resolved at the particular historical
moment in which they are asked to entertain the question, their argument may differ from the
one that a particular historical figure or group actually made. However, it must be historically
plausible: It must show an appreciation of the historical context and the points of view of the
historical actors who wrestled with the issue at that moment in time.
PBHI often employs analogies as tools to help refine reasoning about problem solutions.
For example, students evaluating the justification for tactics used by colonial activists may
compare those actors’ motivations and tactics to those of abolitionists before the American Civil
War or the current Intifada movement in Palestine. History educators may question the
appropriateness of drawing “lessons” from the past, but cognitive science and practical
experience tell us that reasoning by historical analogy is a common use of history (Khong, 1992;
Levstik & Barton, 2001). Cognitive science research suggests that humans have limited abilities
to entertain the complexity of social reality. Humans use certain knowledge structures such as
schema and analogies to help order, interpret, and simplify their environment. Individuals match
new instances with instances stored in their memories to help them comprehend the world.
(Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Simon, 1982).
Studies of political decision-making reveal that even well-informed policymakers turn to
their repertoire of historical memories to make sense of a new situation (Khong, 1992; Neustadt
& May, 1986). Although analogies are best suited as heuristic devices for discovering new
phenomena or explanations, historical analogies are often used inappropriately. Khong (1992)
argues that policymakers have often used historical analogies not as tools for discovering facts
and explanations but as facts and explanations themselves. The “lessons” of the past become
Promoting Civic Competence
12
dogma that no one questions. However, in the case of the first Bush administration’s use of
Vietnam as an analogy to reason about policy in Gulf War I, Khong found that officials
disagreed about the lessons of Vietnam. Because there was no agreement on the “lesson,” the
analogy served a more proper heuristic function in encouraging debate and caution in
considering how Vietnam might apply to the Gulf crisis.
Evidence of experts using historical analogies poorly and more appropriately suggests
that encouraging debate and doubt about the applicability of an analogy may be the best
safeguard in helping students to use these heuristics to raise questions rather than provide
answers. In our approach, we advocate examining multiple analogies that may suggest differing
policy choices as an aid in helping students improve the rigor with which they use the past to
inform decision-making in a given instance.
Implementing PBHI
Obstacles to PBHI
Problem based inquiry has seldom flourished in social studies classrooms. Obstacles to
the establishment of inquiry classrooms originate within organizational structures (Cuban, 1984;
McKee, 1988; Onosko, 1991), teachers, and learners. Although organizational obstacles are
important, we focus our attention on those obstacles originating within students and teachers.
Learner obstacles
Problem-based historical inquiry requires rich, divergent content knowledge, complex
reasoning, and sustained effort. Two major learner-related obstacles complicate efforts to meet
these requirements: Student motivation and student readiness to handle the cognitive challenges
posed by social inquiry. Effective inquiry requires that students hold a rich knowledge base for
the topic under study. However, teachers have reported difficulties engaging their students to the
Promoting Civic Competence
13
degree that they are willing to expend the effort necessary to develop complex content
knowledge (Onosko, 1991; Rossi, 1995).
Even for engaged learners, reasoned decision-making about past or present social issues
presents daunting cognitive challenges. We have already discussed the limits on humans’
cognitive capacity for entertaining complex information. Social issues exacerbate the problems
posed by these limitations. Unlike the well-structured problems encountered in fields such as
science and mathematics, social phenomena and the issues surrounding them present illstructured, multilogical problem landscapes. Rather than a logical progression from hypothesis to
conclusion, reasoning about social reality requires constructing a model of the situation under
consideration (Parker, Mueller, & Wendling, 1989; Saye & Brush, 1999; 2002a; Simon, 1982).
Social issues are multilogical because diverse individuals bring different frames of
reference to bear on arguments about the public good. Critical or dialectical reasoning about
social issues requires learners to acknowledge and seriously entertain perspectives that are
different from their own. This necessitates overcoming natural human tendencies toward
egocentricity and ethnocentricity (Perkins, 1985; Piaget, 1965). Reasoning about the past is
further complicated by the need to account for perspectives of persons in times and places very
different from the present (Yeager & Foster, 2001). It requires a genuine belief that the views of
others—even figures in the distant, foreign past—are potentially as sensible as our own (Levstik
& Barton, 2001) and a disciplined effort to avoid presentism and consider the issue within its
own historical context. Establishing such “unnatural” habits of mind (Wineburg, 1999) is a
prerequisite to dialectical reasoning about persistent social problems. Such reasoning begins with
an assumption that others’ views may have worth and proceeds to an honest interrogation of
competing perspectives on an issue before arriving at a final position.
Promoting Civic Competence
14
Constructing models of social problems requires students to develop and employ deep
domain-specific knowledge. Problem solutions must be grounded in standards of inquiry
acceptable to experts in the field (Scheurman & Newmann, 1998; Sexias, 2001; VanSledright,
2002). However, novices differ substantially from experts in the ways they approach problems.
The first barrier to more expert-like thinking springs from epistemological assumptions about
knowledge and history. Novices regard historical narratives as straightforward recountings of
directly knowable events rather than as human creations from evidence trails that remain open to
interpretation and argumentation (Holt, 1990; VanSledright, 2002; Wineburg, 1991a, 1991b;
Yeager & Davis, 1995).
Second, novices begin the study of problems with severe knowledge deficits (VanSickle
& Hoge, 1991). They do not have rich declarative knowledge about historical and social
phenomena. Furthermore, they have not mastered standards of inquiry known to experts in the
field. They lack the procedural and strategic knowledge that would tell them to how best to
investigate a problem, what questions to ask of data, and what rules to apply in weighing what
counts as evidence (VanSledright, 2002). Historians look beyond the visible text for subtextual
clues. They source, corroborate, and contextualize evidence to judge its merit and how it might
be used to help construct a narrative of an event. Novices do not naturally ask questions about
the source of evidence; nor do they often compare accounts. They do not have the foundational
or conceptual knowledge that experts use to situate facts and evidence in larger historical and
conceptual contexts (Wineburg, 1991b). Unlike experts, novices also fail to employ
metacognitive strategies to help monitor and guide their thinking during the process of
investigation.
Promoting Civic Competence
15
The combined effect of these obstacles impedes rigorous inquiry and decision-making.
Student investigations of problems often result in superficial solutions that lack adequate
evidentiary support, fail to place events within larger historical and conceptual contexts, and fail
to demonstrate competent empathetic and dialectical reasoning.
Teacher obstacles
Skilled teachers may help students overcome some of these obstacles, but teachers face
their own challenges in a PBHI environment. Some teachers may resist inquiry because of
absolutist epistemological assumptions, conflicting beliefs about what is legitimate and possible
in teaching and learning interactions, or dispositional intolerances for uncertainty and ambiguity.
However, even when these factors are not present, other obstacles to inquiry may dissuade
teachers. First, given its rarity in existing classrooms, teachers may lack models for envisioning
successful inquiry classrooms. Second, inquiry requires increased preparation time for producing
materials, activities, and assessment. Finally, inquiry places heavy cognitive demands on both
teachers and learners. Supporting student reasoning demands that teachers have deep content
mastery as well as tremendous concentration, energy, and mental flexibility (Land, 2000;
Onosko, 1991; Windschitl, 2002).
Addressing the Obstacles to PBHI
Work in constructivism, cognitive science, expert thinking, authentic instruction and
instructional design has offered insight into how the obstacles to PBHI might be overcome. Over
the past decade, researchers have begun to explore how technology might be joined with this
work to build open-ended learning environments (OELEs) that support rigorous problem solving
by allowing complex concepts to be realistically represented, manipulated, and explored
(Jonassen, 1999; Land, 2000). We have conducted a series of case studies in high school history
Promoting Civic Competence
16
classrooms that applied these theories to the design and testing of a multimedia-supported,
problem-based OELE that we call Decision Point (DP). In our case studies, students use DP
resources and tools to examine issues associated with the African-American civil rights
movement of the 1950s-60s (Brush & Saye, 2000, 2001; Saye & Brush, 1999, 2001, 2002a,
2002b). The findings from this body of work have informed our design of the PIH curriculum
initiative and its web-based OELE. Our design incorporates criteria that we consider essential to
a holistic strategy for successful problem-based historical inquiry (Table 2).
A central notion emerging from the research literature suggests support devices or
scaffolds may allow learners to perform at a higher level than they might without support (Linn,
1995; Roehler & Cantlon, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). Our PBHI criteria assume multiple layers of
such support should be interwoven through all aspects of the learning experience. We distinguish
two types of scaffolding that may be used to support thinking. Support might be built into the
structure of the learning environment itself or into the tools and resources featured in a learning
experience. We call these static supports hard scaffolds because they can be planned in advance
based upon typical difficulties with a task. Technological affordances provide powerful new
options for hard scaffolding. However, no matter how well designed, hard scaffolds cannot
anticipate all of the support needs that learners will require in addressing complex, ill-structured
social problems. Successful PBHI also requires spontaneous support from the teacher. We term
this support soft scaffolding, the diagnosis of the understandings and difficulties of learners and
the provision of timely support based on student responses (Saye & Brush, 2002a). In this
section, we will examine how the effects of the interlocking components of curriculum design,
technological and non-technological tools and resources, and soft scaffolding might mitigate
known obstacles to inquiry.
Promoting Civic Competence
17
Table 2. Criteria for Effective Problem-based Learning Environments.
(1) Learning focuses around a meaningful, ill-structured problem
 Problem solution demands consideration of diverse perspectives
 Rich multiple media and multiple sources of knowledge reflect the complexity of
real problems and allow access through different ways of knowing
(2) Learners assume substantial ownership for planning and implementing problemsolving strategies.
(3) Collaborative tasks encourage individual accountability, positive interdependence,
and collective rationality.
(4) Disciplined inquiry is supported with:
 Clear expectations for performance.
 Models of procedures and exemplary performances.
 Appropriate and timely cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic scaffolding.
(5) Unique problem solutions are publicly defended.
(6) Solutions are assessed by known performance-based standards.
PIH Curriculum Design
In addition to scaffolded instruction, three other principles guide the design of PIH units:
authenticity of experience, incorporation of multiple intelligences, and effective collaboration.
Theorists suggest that the authenticity of the learning experience is the greatest influence on
student engagement (Land, 2000; Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992; VanSickle, 1991).
Authentic school tasks seem worth the effort because students wrestle with relevant, realistic
problems that bear some correspondence to what people actually do outside the school. Learning
incorporates features common to real-world activities: collaboration, use of resources and tools,
assessment of final products against known standards of quality (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989; Wiggins, 1998). PIH units incorporate a number of features to enhance authenticity (Table
3). For instance, the PIH focus on meaningful, enduring social problems provides a motivating
context. In our model unit, students investigate period historical data to make and defend
judgments about a persistent issue pertinent to the civil rights movement: “What actions are
justified and necessary to attain social justice?”
Promoting Civic Competence
18
Students may also fail to become engaged when placed in situations that do not allow
them realistic opportunities to succeed (Doyle, 1983). Before beginning work, students should be
clear about task requirements and performance expectations. Often school tasks reward only
those students who are experienced or gifted linguistically and/or logically. Howard Gardner’s
work (1999) suggests that individuals may know and express what they know in a number of
alternative ways. PIH problems feature complex culminating tasks that require collaborative
effort and call for a wide combination of abilities in order to produce a successful product. A
genuine need exists for collaboration because individuals are unlikely to possess high levels of
competency in all components of the task. Such tasks invite the participation of previously
disaffected students because their abilities are recognized and valued by the teacher and their
peers (Cohen & Benton, 1988; Bower, Lobdell, & Swenson, 1999). For example, a student
investigatory team may be hired as consultants by a particular civil rights group to present its
case before an assembled group of civil rights leaders who are debating the direction of the
movement. In order to produce the final product -- a persuasive multimedia presentation and
defense of position -- students perform varied, overlapping roles such as technical director,
spokesperson, layout artist, or investigative reporter.
Not only may collaborative task design create broader engagement and healthier
classroom environments, well-designed collaborations may help students succeed in constructing
richer models of reality than they might do individually (Cohen & Benton, 1988). Complex
cooperative activities may help overcome innate cognitive limitations by encouraging collective
rationality where learners coordinate individual capabilities, encounter diverse perspectives, and
articulate their views in defense of their preferred policy positions (Schulman & Carey, 1984).
We combine collaborative tasks with other PIH features such as assumption of historical roles,
Promoting Civic Competence
19
encounters with rich documents reflecting conflicting perspectives, and a final defense of the
group’s position before their peers in order to encourage students to confront the tentativity of
factual claims, to develop empathy for diverse viewpoints, and to weigh alternative problem
solutions. By planning systematically for explicit orientations to tasks, distributing and reviewing
explicit task guides that include complete role descriptions and procedures for formative
evaluation, and providing hard copies of task models and rubrics, students gain a clearer sense of
how to proceed and perform well in the challenging cognitive tasks associated with inquiry.
Table 3. PIH Curriculum Design.
Authenticity
 Central focus on meaningful motivating problem
 Culminating task and standards for evaluation are known in advance
 Students assume roles of historical decision makers
 Rich primary documents feature multiple perspectives
 Students author and publicly defend problem solutions
Multiple Intelligences/Collaboration
 Complex collaborative task structure facilitates multiple intelligences and
collective rationality
Technological Affordances
Beyond general curriculum design, we leverage the power of interactive technologies to
promote deeper engagement, support more rigorous inquiry, and create opportunities for teachers
to interact intensively with individuals and small groups (Table 4). Technology-supported
OELEs can enhance student engagement by providing more lifelike and varied representations of
the social world that increase the realism of the problem scenario and appeal to multiple ways of
knowing. Furthermore, OELEs may feature embedded hard scaffolds that assist teachers and
learners in handling the heavy cognitive challenges posed by PBHI (Saye & Brush, 2002a).
Promoting Civic Competence
20
Table 4. PIH Technological Affordances.
Engagement
 Realistic representations of reality
 Knowledge representations through multiple media
Support for Disciplined Inquiry
 Conceptual, chronological database structure
 Essay hyperlinks
o To relevant documents
o To conflicting accounts
o Historical Think-alouds
 Inquiry tools
o Data analysis & synthesis guides
o Contextual cues
o Presentation tool
 On-line models
 Embedded second stream of expertise
Superficial perceptions of a problem’s complexity present fundamental challenges for
novice problem solvers. Cognitive flexibility theorists compare the development of expert
knowledge to the exploration a new territory (Jacobsen, Maouiri, Mishra, & Kolar, 1996; Spiro
& Jehng, 1990). Coming to know a topographical area requires repeated "criss-crosses" that
follow varied paths and view the landscape from multiple vantage points. Similarly, to
understand a complex problem, learners must look beyond the surface of a given situation to
perceive the more abstract structural components of the problem landscape that underlie the case.
For instance, in wrestling with issues and conflicting views surrounding the civil rights
movement, expert problem solvers in that domain might reference foundational knowledge
related to such concepts as equality, property rights, and civil disobedience. They might reflect
upon related events that have impacted a particular situation such as desegregation of the military
during WWII. OELEs can use the linking affordances provided by hypermedia to provide justin-time, situational thinking supports that guide novices toward such connections as they explore
a problem landscape.
Promoting Civic Competence
21
Our DP OELE features two basic components that tap the potential of technology for
supporting disciplined inquiry: An interactive database of multimedia content resources related
to the civil rights movement and scaffolding tools to support collecting, analyzing, and
evaluating historical evidence and presenting conclusions. The DP design features a number of
elements to assist learners in situating this mass of evidence in larger historical and conceptual
contexts. The interactive database contains over 1000 multimedia artifacts that include
newspaper accounts, eyewitness recollections, documents, photographs, and news footage from
the civil rights era. The database is organized conceptually and chronologically into three strands
that represent the principal change strategies employed by the movement: legal challenges, nonviolent protest, and Black Power. Within each strand are seven to eight events associated with
that strategy. Each event features an introductory essay, a timeline, and primary documents
associated with that event. Within events, we grouped evidence by document type (such as
“newspaper accounts”) to prompt students to consider the source of the evidence.
Hyperlinked essays. Hyperlinks connect terms in introductory essays for each event to
pertinent primary documents, video clips, glossary terms, or other events’ introductory essays.
Such links allow students to encounter primary documents within the sort of framing context that
a more expert researcher might possess and lead them to make connections that they might
otherwise not consider. To encourage students to confront the interpretive nature of historical
claims and wrestle with competing logics, essay links also deliberately guide students to
competing perspectives regarding events (Figure 2).
Promoting Civic Competence
22
Figure 2. DP Database Conceptual Structure.
DP Main Menu
Interactive Essay
Strand Main Menu
Primary Document
Event Main Menu
Another possibility that interactive hypertext presents for helping students develop more
complex representations of the problem landscape is a more specialized type of interactive essay
that we call a historical think-aloud. Think-aloud essays can focus on sub-questions within the
larger problem scenario and address the difficulties that learners have with situating knowledge
in broader contexts, establishing historical empathy, and considering competing arguments and
their supporting evidence. Think-alouds present interior monologues for historical figures who
have difficult decisions to make, for example, John Kennedy trying to decide whether to
intervene in the Freedom Rides crisis in Alabama (O’Reilly, 1998). Through the monologue,
students encounter the situation more as someone from that day and position would experience
Promoting Civic Competence
23
it. Hyperlinks embedded in the monologue direct students to documents in the DP database that
present evidence for differing points of view that the figure should consider in coming to a
decision. We include several think-alouds in our civil rights unit that model for teachers how
they might assist student thinking with this scaffolding device.
Inquiry tools. DP inquiry tools support students in interrogating, interpreting and
evaluating the evidence with greater rigor. For instance, students are assisted with interpreting
individual documents through analysis scaffolds that guide them through the sourcing,
corroborating, and contextualizing heuristics employed by historians. Contextual cues may be
embedded as hyperlinks in the text of primary documents to encourage students to consider
pertinent issues in interpreting a particular portion in the text (Figure 3). At the event level,
contextual data retrieval charts associated with each event provide specific strategic scaffolds
that help students to ask more holistic questions of a body of historical data and prompt them to
consider alternative arguments. A presentation construction scaffold provides procedural and
strategic support to prompt students to consider and test opposing arguments and to help them
use evidence to author more reasoned problem solutions.
Promoting Civic Competence
24
Figure 3. Inquiry Tools. Embedded contextual cues paired with document analysis scaffold.
absorb evil:
Why might the author argue that love
and non-violence absorb evil? Check the
DP timeline to see what other events
were occurring around this time that
might have influenced this documentΥs
creation. Skim the essays for events
closely related in time to see if they
help you understand the contents of
this document.
Lawson:
As a divinity student in Nashville
during the fifties, James Lawson
became an advocate of passive
resistance after studying Gandhi.
Inspired by the Montgomery Bus
Boycott, Lawson began offering
workshops in the South on non-violent
demonstration in 1958. Influenced by
these workshops, civil rights leaders
such as Diane Nash, James Foreman,
and John Lewis launched sit-ins at
segregated lunch counters across the
South.
Student Voice:
Newsletter sponsored by the Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
On-line models. On-line models of exemplary performances help learners and teachers
gain a sense of what it means to do a complex task well and how they might proceed in
accomplishing task requirements. For example, models of exemplary multimedia presentations
on an issue related to the unit problem demonstrate persuasive, dialectical arguments that
incorporate appropriate evidentiary support. Teachers may use these models to discuss each
standard to be met in performing the task, and students may review the models to help them
conceptualize how they might meet those standards in their own culminating presentations.
Some off-line hard scaffolds may work in concert with on-line supports. For example, we found
that a paper version of a presentation storyboard template allowed learners to plan more
effectively for the arguments they wished to make and also served as an excellent device for the
teacher to gain insight into student reasoning and then provide interim feedback that might
improve final products.
Promoting Civic Competence
25
Although other on-line models target teachers, some may be used with learners as well.
For example, vignettes of real classrooms engaged in inquiry tasks help teachers envision
implementing such learning in their own classrooms, but may be used as well to help the class
think about procedures for meeting similar challenges in their own unit. On-line model lessons
and units may be adapted by teachers for their own classes or may serve to stimulate teacher
thinking about alternative lesson strategies.
Embedded expertise. Perhaps the most important affordance provided by technology is
time. Effective support for disciplined inquiry requires the teacher to probe and provide feedback
regarding learners’ reasoning as students engage in knowledge construction. Such interactions
demand enormous investments of the teacher’s time in one-on-one interchanges. Knowledge
resources and associated supports embedded in the technology-based OELE make available a
second stream of expertise in the classroom. These resources allow the whole class to proceed
more effectively in independent learning so that more of the teacher’s time may be devoted to
interacting intensively with individuals and small groups both spontaneously and in planned
group meetings.
Soft Scaffolding
Careful curriculum design supported by on-line and off-line hard scaffolds may lessen the
cognitive load of inquiry. However, resolutions to social problems invite diverse, multilogical
reasoning paths that cannot be anticipated fully in advance. Success in ill-structured
environments ultimately rests upon the teacher’s facilitation of inquiry through soft scaffolding
(Saye & Brush, 2002a). A teacher colleague who skillfully implements PBHI in his classroom
noted that successful PBHI requires teachers to “be the ringmaster, the juggler.” Teachers must
Promoting Civic Competence
26
manage a number of complex tasks simultaneously if they are to engage in PBHI wise practices
(Table 5).
Table 5. Wise Teacher Practices for Problem-based Historical Inquiry.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Establishes relevance of tasks (including introductory grabber)
Explicitly introduces the Central Question and the unit purpose
Sets tasks within the context of the overall unit purpose
Places events within larger historical contexts. Helps students fit specific data
with larger events, movements, issues
Models historical thinking and critical reasoning for students
Provides feedback and support for student thinking and reasoning
Probes student thinking/ challenges students to think more deeply
Encourages students to empathize and to consider multiple viewpoints
Gets closure; helps students link knowledge to larger unit questions
Soft scaffolding is a dynamic, situational process that occurs while learners are actively
engaged in reasoning. During these teacher-learner interchanges, the teacher may model
historical thinking and critical reasoning, provide formative feedback that allows students to test
and modify their ideas, and probe student reasoning to encourage contextualizaton, empathy, and
consideration of alternative views. For example, students often accept evidence at face value
without considering the subtext. A teacher might alert struggling students to think about subtext
through a series of questions such as: “Now, before you read this piece let’s think about what
you might expect to find: Who is the person who wrote this? When was it written? Is there
anything about the author’s position in society that might affect the way the author views this
event?” After students have read a document, a teacher might ask: “Why do you suppose the
author wrote this? Does the account make you feel either positively or negatively about the
subject? What is it in the account that might do that? How does this account compare to others
you have read? What might explain differences?”
Much soft scaffolding must be conducted privately with individuals and small groups in
order to address specific situational needs. However, soft scaffolding can also be done publicly.
Promoting Civic Competence
27
In public soft scaffolding, knowledge is modeled, constructed, and interrogated in the presence
of the whole class. Public soft scaffolding may be most effective at the beginning and the
conclusion of the unit. The first day of a unit is the most crucial (Onosko & Swenson, 1996). On
the first day students decide whether the unit tasks are worth the effort. Skillful teachers may
help establish worth with unit introductions that (1) engage the class in an exercise designed to
demonstrate the relevance of the unit problem, (2) relate the unit grabber explicitly to the unit
problem or central question and the unit purpose, and (3) link all unit activities clearly to the task
of addressing the central question. The introductory grabber should stimulate discourse about the
problem that confronts students with alternative viewpoints and demonstrates the problematic
nature of the question and the need for more knowledge in order to develop a defensible problem
solution. A preview of unit activities provides a conceptual blueprint for how that solution might
be developed.
In a complex open-ended learning environment students often struggle to remain on-task,
manage explorations of rich data sources, and organize and interpret the results of their
investigations (Ehman, Glenn, Johnson, & White, 1992; Lyons, Hoffman, Krajcik, & Soloway,
1977). The motivating focus provided on the first day helps students establish and maintain clear
goals. However, the ill-structured nature of the problem landscape demands that the teacher
spend time each day refocusing tasks within the overall unit purpose and helping students situate
specific historical data and events within larger themes and contexts. Common problems
experienced by a particular class or those that generally arise with most classes may be addressed
by the teacher modeling a process or a certain type of reasoning for the whole class as it is about
to encounter the task. For example, as students are about to engage conflicting accounts in
primary document analysis, a teacher might make students sensitive to perspective-taking and
Promoting Civic Competence
28
bias by playing a soundless video clip of Birmingham firefighters using fire hoses on civil rights
demonstrators, asking class members to describe the incident from the perspectives of various
historical actors, and leading a discussion about why the descriptions may vary.
Some diagnosis of student difficulties occurs as teachers observe students at work.
However, more comprehensive diagnosis may be achieved by building features into the unit that
deliberately create opportunities for the teacher to probe and support understandings while they
are under construction. By utilizing the second stream of expertise offered by technology, the
teacher may schedule regular meetings with collaborative teams. We call these Socratic meetings
because they focus on the close interrogation of ideas in order to encourage more complex
thought. If the teacher also has students work with hard scaffolds such as the presentation
storyboard, interim student work products may be submitted for the teacher’s review before the
Socratic meeting. The use of such scaffolds keeps students focused during their independent
work and provides the teacher with a window on student reasoning. Because the teacher receives
these products in advance and may reflect overnight upon the most appropriate supporting
responses, the cognitive stress of spontaneous soft scaffolding may be lessened for the teacher.
Public soft scaffolding may also yield great benefits at the conclusion of a PBHI unit. As
collaborative groups present problem resolutions, students are unlikely to achieve powerful
synthesis without support. The teacher may lead the class in careful interrogations of group
proposals that consider evidentiary support for claims and bring the perspectives of other
historical actors to bear on examining those claims. In such debriefings, the teacher may link the
work that different groups have done by asking questions of other class members that make
explicit connections among events and that cause students to entertain alternative problem
solutions. For example, the teacher might ask a group representing black nationalists to respond
Promoting Civic Competence
29
to a group proposing continued court challenges for bringing about social justice and open the
floor to discussion of the two viewpoints. When a group struggles with inadequate knowledge,
arguments, or context, skilled incorporation of the insights and perspectives of other students
allows the class itself to become a scaffold that helps the whole class develop a deeper, broader
synthesis. The teacher’s leadership in this public forum models for the class how one makes
conceptual and cause-effect connections and helps students weave diverse content expertise into
broader generalizations about social change.
Conclusion
Genuine civic competency sets a noble, but demanding standard for citizenship. We must
not underestimate the difficulties that learners encounter in reaching that standard or the
challenges that teachers and curriculum designers face in supporting learners’ efforts. In this
paper, we have argued that all social studies subjects should attend more directly to this civic
mission and have described a framework that uses current theory and research to develop a
holistic approach to mitigating the obstacles to civic inquiry in pre-collegiate history courses. We
have illustrated how technology can provide new resources, tools, and support structures that
enhance traditional inquiry methods. In the future, we plan to engage in collaborative research
and curriculum development with a wide network of educators who wish to experiment with PIH
principles and strategies and contribute to the growth of the PBHI wise practice methodology.
We hope that this professional community, the Persistent Issues in History Workshop, will grow
to be a powerful force for assisting students in using history to develop civic competence.
Promoting Civic Competence
30
References
Bower, B., Lobdell, J., & Swenson, L. (1999). History alive! Engaging all learners in diverse
classrooms: Teachers Curriculum Institute.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brush, T. A., & Saye, J. W. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered
learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3),
79-100.
Brush, T. A., & Saye, J. W. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported
student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4),
333-356.
Cohen, E. G., & Benton, J. (1988). Making groupwork work. American Educator(Fall), 10-17,
45-56.
Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught. New York: Longmans.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 159-199.
Ehman, L. H., Glenn, A. D., Johnson, V., & White, C. S. (1992). Using computer databases in
student problem solving. Theory and Research in Social Education, 20(2), 179-206.
FitzGerald, F. (1979). America revised: history schoolbooks in the twentieth century. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New
York: Basic Books.
Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board.
Promoting Civic Competence
31
Jacobsen, M., J. , Maouiri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning
environments: Theory, design and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia., 5(3/4), 239-281.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),
instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Khong, Y. F. (1992). Analogies at War. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61-78.
Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2001). Committing acts of history: Mediated action, humanistic
education, and participatory democracy. In W. Stanley (Ed.), Critical Issues in Social
Studies Research for the 21st Century (pp. 119-147). Greenwich, CN: Information Age
Publishing.
Linn, M. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer
science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 4 (2), 103-126.
Lyons, D., Hoffman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). An investigation of the use of the
world wide web for on-line inquiry in a science classroom. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Theory and Method
(Vol. 1, pp. 142-150). New York: Random House.
Massaro, T. M. (1993). Constitutional literacy: A core curriculum for a multicultural nation.
Duram and London: Duke University Press.
Promoting Civic Competence
32
McKee, S. J. (1988). Impediments to implementing critical thinking. Social Education, 52(6),
444-446.
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma: The negro problem in modern democracy. New York:
Harper & Row.
National Council for the Social Studies (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum
standards for the social studies. Washington: National Council for the Social Studies.
Neustadt, R. E., & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision-makers.
New York: Macmillan.
Newmann, F. M., & Oliver, D. (1970). Clarifying public controversy: An approach to social
studies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Newmann, F. M. (1988). Can depth replace coverage in the high school curriculum. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69(5), 345-348.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of
student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in
American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of social
judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oliver, D. W., Newmann, F. M., & Singleton, L. R. (1992). Teaching public issues in the
secondary school classroom. The Social Studies, 83(3), 100-103.
Oliver, D. W., & Shaver, J. P. (1966). Teaching public issues in the high school. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Onosko, J. (1991). Barriers to the promotion of higher order thinking in social studies. Theory
and Research in Social Education, 19(4), 341-366.
Promoting Civic Competence
33
Onosko, J., & Swenson, L. (1996). Designing issue-based unit plans. In R. W. Evans & D. W.
Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 89-98). Washington: National
Council for the Social Studies.
O'Reilly, K. (1998). What would you do? Social Education, 62(1), 48-50.
Parker, W. C., Mueller, M., & Wendling, L. (1989). Critical reasoning on civic issues. Theory
and Research in Social Education, 19(4), 7-32.
Parker, W. C., Ninomiya, A., & Cogan, J. (1999). Educating world citizens: Toward
multinational curriculum development. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2),
117-145.
Parker, W. C. (2001). Toward enlightened political engagement. In W. Stanley (Ed.), Critical
Issues in Social Studies Research for the 21st Century. Greenwich, CN: Information Age
Publishing.
Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of
Eductional Psychology, 77, 562-571.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Patrick, J. J. (2000). Multicultural education and the civic mission of the schools. In W. G.
Wranga & P. S. Hlebowitsh (Eds.), Research Review for School Leaders (pp. 103-133).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Patrick, J. J., & Vontz, T. S. (2001). Principles and practices of democracy in the education of
social studies teachers: Civic learning in teacher education (Vol. 1). Bloomington,
Indiana: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/ Social Science Education.
Ravitch, D., & Chester E. Finn, J. (1987). What do our 17-year-olds know? New York: Harper &
Row.
Promoting Civic Competence
34
Roehler, L. & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist
classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding Student Learning:
Instructional Approaches and Issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Rossi, J. A. (1995). In-depth study in an issues-centered social studies classroom. Theory and
Research in Social Education, 23(2), 87-120.
Rumelhart, D., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. Anders,
R. Spiro & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimediasupported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 472504.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2001). Scaffolding problem-centered teaching in traditional social
studies classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College and University
Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Washington, D.C.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002a). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in
multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 77-96.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002b). Supporting Student Inquiry in a Multimedia Learning
Environment: Comparative Case Studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies,
Phoenix, AZ.
Scheurman, G., & Newmann, F. M. (1998). Authentic intellectual work in social studies: putting
performance before pedagogy. Social Education, 62(1), 21-35.
Promoting Civic Competence
35
Schulman, L. S., & Carey, N. B. (1984). Psychology and the limitations of individual rationality:
Implications for the study of reasoning and civility. Review of Educational Research, 54,
501-524.
Sexias, P. (2001). Review of research on social studies. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Simon, H. (1982). Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Smith, J., & Niemi, R. G. (2001). Learning history in school: The impact of course work and
instructional practices on achievement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 29(1),
18-42.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology
for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix &
R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
VanSickle, R. L. (1996). Questions of motivation for achievement in social studies. In B. G.
Massialas and R. F. Allen. Crucial issues in teaching social studies k-12 (pp. 81-105.
New York: Wadsworth.
VanSickle, R. L., & Hoge, J. D. (1991). Higher cognitive thinking skills in social studies:
Concepts and critiques. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19(2), 152-172.
VanSledright, B. (2002). In search of America's past: Learning to read history in elementary
school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Promoting Civic Competence
36
Wiggins, G. (1998). An exchange of views on "Semantics, pychometrics, and assessment reform:
A close look at 'Authentic' assessments". Educational Researcher, 27(6), 20-21.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constuctivism in practice as negotiation of dilemmas: An
analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991a). Historical problem solving: A study of cognitive processes used in the
evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(1), 73-87.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991b). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between the
school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495-519.
Wineburg, S. S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. The Kappan, 80(7), 488.
Yeager, E. A., & O. L. Davis, Jr. (1995). Between campus and classroom: Secondary student
teachers thinking about historical texts. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 29(1), 1-8.
Yeager, E. A., & Foster, S. J. (2001). The role of empathy in the development of historical
understanding. In O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and
perspective taking in the social studies (pp 13-19). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.