Taylor Smith

C&T 862
Dr. Joseph OBrien
6/18/2015
Moving Beyond the Narrative: Teaching historical thinking skills to prepare students for
citizenship in the 21st century
Beyond speeches and marches, and the ominous, yet often present, reactions of authority,
the soul of the Civil Rights Movement was enlivened through song. These songs united African
Americans, while providing the strength to fight in solidarity against the injustices of Jim Crow
America. Painting the imagery of a strongly rooted tree We Shall Not be Moved presents a
lyrical argument that defends the activists contentions against governor Wallace, and the
necessity of winning the battle for freedom, once and for all. Regardless of the variation in the
lyrics, each version presents the following verse (PBS, n.d.):
We shall not, we shall not be moved.
We shall not, we shall not be moved.
Just like a tree, planted by the water,
We shall not be moved
Although one may be able to use their context clues to determine the relationships to an era, but
provided you have an interest or familiarity in protest music during the Civil Rights Movement,
you may have never heard of the song We Shall not be Moved. However, when 8th grade
students took the 2014 NAEP exam, these specific lyrics were referred to on an item that
assessed students abilities to relate the relationships of people, cultures, and ideas during a
particular time period, by asking students the following question:
A portion of a song is shown above. This song is associated primarily with
Nearly half of the students (47%) selected the correct answer, the Civil Rights Movement of the
1960s, while the leading distracters were pioneers moving west in the early nineteenth century
(21%) and the Womens Rights movement of the 1970's (19%) .1 Like many of the preceding
1 Not noted is the option that 11% of students selectedSoldiers during the
Second World War.
1

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessments, these national tests measure
students proficiency towards measuring the content that all Americans must posses by the
time they are in the eighth-grade (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).
If you did not know the answer to the question above, it is still possible that you do hold the
necessary knowledge of a productive American citizen; however, alarms sounded when media
outlets quickly reported that students flat-lined in the subjects of U.S. History, Geography, and
Civics, due to the lack of growth in results since 2010. These reports have leaders and experts
questioning the future of the United States, as well as how we teach Social Studies and whether
or not our nation has made its own civically illiterate state by placing a stronger emphasis on
English Language Arts, and the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(Brown, 2015).
As we anchor our way along the era of the standardization of educationespecially with
social studiesthe questions that policy makers and experts must ask are: what are appropriate
ways of assessing an understanding of history; are these tests a valid assessment of what an
individual needs to become a productive citizen; and why do we even teach history? Although
the teaching of the nations development is present, I argue that inquiry based learning that
employs open-ended essential questions and historical thinking, especially within a U.S. history
course, provides students with the tools to successfully navigate through citizenship in the 21st
Century. While examining the works of the voices behind the push for historical thinkingSam
Wineburg, Bruce VanSledright, and others, and various literature, and examples of
pedagogical practices, this paper will begin with the recent emphasis of historical thinking skills,
an explanation of what historical thinking entails, and conclude with how to engage students in
the process of doing history.
Approaching U.S. History through Historical Thinking
In lieu of adopting the revised Advanced Placement (AP) curriculum for U.S. History,
Oklahoma legislators resisted, as they believed that the classes focus too much on the bad of
2

America. Representative Dan Fischer, the author of House Bill 1380, expressed worry that the
new curriculum attributed little if anything about the Declaration of Independence, founding
documents and their authors, and the Revolutionary War (Hubbard, 2015). Likewise, Texas
lawmakers recharged a commitment to the Texas state curriculum to counter the new AP
curriculum. Some lawmakers in Texas feared that this curriculum framework was aligned with
liberal themes, and was evidence of mind control from the Federal government (Weissert,
2014). However, with the new demands of the Common Core State Standards, proponents of the
new AP curricular framework argued for its use in moving away from rote memorization to
fostering students inquiry skills, rather than providing them with a jaded perspective about the
country (Hubbard, 2015).
Throughout history education, researchers continuously discover that many young
students think of history as a linear progression of historical narratives that hold little or no
room for ambiguity. When lawmakers push for curriculums that perpetuate this narrative, and
teachers rely on a related textbook, students become bound by an authors words that they take at
face value. Without even considering the epistemology of history including contextualizing,
sourcing, and corroborating students view historical narratives as complete and few view
them as interpretative reconstructions that are assembled from fragmentary, and
contradictory traces (Esptein, 2012). Therefore, researchers suggest that when teachers design
lessons or opportunities for the exploration or creation of open-ended questions, rather than a
textual approach, there is a reconstruction of students views of historical study (Epstein, 2012;
Greenwalk and Leahy, 2011). This shift allows classrooms to move from the goal of acquiring
knowledge, but it allows students to critically analyze the heritage and nation building
narrative that is perpetuated, while developing skills necessary for responsible, and engaged
membership in a globalized society (Barton, 2011;Herczog; VanSledright, 2008;Wineburg,
1999).

Often, as perpetuated through state standards, curriculum, and textbooks, a nationalistic

narrative, or rather heritage, is what students are expected to master within their U.S. History
courses. Difficulty lies in allowing the construction of a counter narrative that represents the
pluralism of the U.S. With this, researchers find that students often possess simplistic ideas
about the complexity and effects of historical change, leading them to credit singular leaders or
causes (Epstein, 2012; VanSledright, 2008). But when curriculums or standards that present a
critical view of U.S. history face scrutiny by lawmakers who deem that those who implement
them are un-American, it is no wonder that students are continuously fed a singular and linear
narrative of American history. However, the perpetuation of the heritage, rather than the study
of history creates a volatile classroom environment where students are highly disengaged, often
questioning, when will I ever need this? Calling upon the need for alternatives to the narrative,
Bruce Vansledright presents the idea of discipline-based history where students develop the
skills needed to assess the American narrative and construct their own understandings within the
progression of the United States development. Thus, VanSeldrights suggestion of disciplinebased history leads to the notion of teaching historical thinking within American classrooms
(VanSledright, 2008).
Historical thinking is interpretative in nature, requiring the participant to investigate all
aspects of the past, including individuals agency to act, perspective taking, and the interpretation
of evidence. During a course of study, those engaged in the thinking processes construct their
own understandings with evidentiary claims and supports that mold the jumbled landscape of the
past today (VanSledright, 2008). If, in fact, the study of history is tethered to evidentiary
warrants that ground it and give it shape, and the readers are to judge historical accounts by
their fidelity by employing criteria that draws conclusions about the reliability of a given
narrative, then why do so many law makers become caught up on whether or not to teach about
the counter narratives that helped shape the nations formation (Wineburg, Reisman, Fogo,
2007)? This tension created by lawmakers, as some believe that it is the schools responsibility to
4

continue the story of national development, contradicts with the increasing need for students to
make sense of their complex world. With this, Sam Wineburg contends that history moves far
beyond the acquisition of knowledge, as its study invites complexity, the evaluation of
perspectives, and the de-contextualization of ones present thoughts for the purpose of
investigating people, places, and events during particular eras. Ultimately, Wineburg questions,
why study history at all, rather than which history, In a nutshell, Wineburg believes that the
study of history is necessary to humanize us by connecting that of the familiar to the strange
and the feelings of proximity to the feelings of distance. In other words, students must learn
from history in order to understand contemporary conditions (Wineburg, 1999).
Throughout his study, however, Wineburg does not present specific historical subjects of
study; rather, the presented data displays how a high school student grappled with primary source
documents from the Revolutionary Era; the interactions of a principal with a diary of a midwife
during the turn of the 19th century; and how practicing historians questioned Lincolns view on
race through various documents. The vignette of the high school student and the practicing
history contrasted greatly in the ways that both participants approached historical thinking. For
example, a Derek, bright high school student, held all of the necessary content knowledge to
present the popular narrative of the Battle of Lexington. When asked to investigate primary
sources from and evaluate a painting of the battle, however, Derek did not understand or ask
questions about the context of 18th Century military norms. Contrarily, the practicing historians
asked multiple questions about the documents, sought understanding when the documents
presented jumbled accounts, and wove between as a way to encounter the past to learn
(Wineburg, 1999).
What must be understood is the historians in Wineburgs study were at an unfair
advantage, as they possess far more epistemological training than that of a high school student.
Historical thinking skills can lead to an individuals construction of and understanding of
particular people, events, and ideas during specific periods, but that these skills are extremely
5

unnatural. It is apparent that the simple acquisition of content knowledge through names, dates,
and facts is so much easier (Wineburg, 1999). However, in order for students to become prepared
for their post secondary civic role in the 21st century, educators, as well as experts and policy
makers, must look to mend the content of history with the skills in a way that demonstrates how
the study of history enhances the skills that are necessary for readiness in college, career, and
civic life (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013)
Like agents of the past, present actors make decisions that impact society (Barton, 2011).
This relationship between the past and present, as well as the advocating for the mastery of
content and skills like critical thinking, problem solving, and communication, makes the use of
historical thinking skills attractive. With the increasing demand to know how to solve global
issues and confront the demands of economic changes and technological advances, the onenarrative-fits-all approach given to U.S. history does not fit within the realities of the 21st
century (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, n.d.). Therefore, disciplinary practices like
historical thinking lend an opportunity for teachers to enhance the rigor of the U.S. history
classroom, thus preparing students for the dynamic global landscape (National Council for the
Social Studies, 2013).
Given the fear of wandering too far from the development of the United States, however,
one teacher may find it fittingwithin the context of an 8th grade U.S. history courseto have
students explore the primary source databases that present the various experiences of soldiers
during the Civil War, while answering the question how were soldiers in the North and South
alike and different in how they justified their involvement in the Civil War? Instead of focusing
on the major decisions made by Abraham Lincoln, General Robert E. Lee, and other major
leaders, the inclusion of various soldiers deepens the story portrayed to students. While
evaluating their purpose of fighting, the effectiveness of medicine and the advancements in
technology, and the conditions of war, students may begin to critically consider the justification
for fighting in the war through various voices of the soldiers involved. As for solving 21st
6

Century issues, students may then begin investigating issues like the present healthcare of
veterans (Herczog, n.d.). The ultimate goal of this approach is to mend the content with the
skills, while finding ways that allow students to construct accounts of what happened in the past
(Barton, 2011).
What must be noted is that at the root of historical thinking is an inquiry-based approach,
and success lies not only in the confidence of the teacher, but the ability to access crucial
resource for professional development, preparation, and student use. After years working under
the constraints of No Child Left Behind, some teachers may see this approach to history as a
stretch, or rather a complete shift. Reason being, some teachers will have to update their
practices, reconfigure assessments, and even build upon their content knowledge (Herczog,
2014). However intimidating the task, one may find solace in educational literature, as well webbased curriculum that provides teachers with the tools they need to allow students unveil the
voices of the past
Doing History
In order to think historically, teachers must expose students of all ages to historical
evidence, as well as opportunities to engage in interpreting assigned texts. This means that
exposure must include diaries, letters, artwork, government works, artifacts, and various sources
that are grade appropriate. This is an important aspect of allowing students to draw conclusions
about historical events, as examining the pasts residua is a necessary component of
understanding how historians develop accounts of people, places, and events. Despite widening
the array of voices heard in a history classroom, simply exposing students to more primary
source texts is insufficient. Children and adolescents must experience historical interpretation
(Barton, 2011).
Correlating with his study over historical thinking, Sam Wineburg and the Stanford
History Education Group (SHEG) offer a curriculum that engages students in the historical
inquiry process. Reading Like a Historian offers a framework where students explore historical
7

accounts that surround a central historical question. Students use the assigned sources that
represent multiple perspectives, and employ the historical thinking skills through reading
strategies such as sourcing, corroborating, contextualizing, and close reading. The ultimate goal
is to have students move from memorizing facts and a singular narrative to considering the
reliability of assigned documents, while creating historical claims that are supported with textual
evidence from the provided documents (Wineburg, Martin, and Monte-Sano, 2013 pp. ix- xii).
The strategies created by SHEG offer teachers an opportunity to assist students in developing an
ability to contextualize choices, while moving away from accepting an authors view point at
face value, a commonalty often discovered by researchers (Epstein, 2012).
According to Wineburg, historians simply approach texts differently as they ask questions
that relate to the author, date, and place of a particular documentbeginning with questions
rather than conclusions. Therefore, in order to assist students in developing these habits of mind,
one of the lessons that included in the curriculum asks students: Were African Americans Free
During Reconstruction? The use of the central historical questionwhich is often openendedimmediately provides students with the opportunity to seek evidence and draw
conclusions. As for the sources, students examine excerpts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendments, Black codes from Ospelousa, LA, a statement from Henry Adams, a former slave,
to the Senate in 1880, photographs of African American elected officials, and a report from a
northern white man on the progress of the Freedmans Bureau, in regards to providing education
(Stanford History Education Group, 2012).
If students were only granted the opportunity to examine the Amendments, they may
assume that African Americans were, in fact, free. However, the corresponding documents add a
dynamic tension as students are presented with evidence of freedom and oppression,
opportunities to define those terms, and, overall, they have to question the reliability of each
source by sourcing, contextualizing, and corroborating evidence. The sources, and the process of
answering the question, are complimented by the lessons guiding questions that assist students
8

in determining the meaning of the source information, the context of the source, and close
reading to aid overall comprehension. Much like a historian would ask, the guiding questions
prompt students to consider, who wrote this document, why was it written, and why do you
think education was important to African Americans during this time period (Stanford History
Education Group, 2012)? Engaging students in studying multiple primary sources, while
scaffolding their experience with questions rooted in historical thinking, provides students the
opportunity to authentically encounter the process of creating their own historical accounts that
are grounded in evidence.
Ultimately, if classrooms lack multiple perspectives and the emphasis of practicing
historical thinking skills, conducting research, and constructing narratives will remain difficult,
allowing the heritage to prevail as a means to teach history (Waring and Robinson, 2010). To
foster these skills, as showcased by Scott Waring and Kirk Robinson, a teacher may begin a
course by simply writing the words historian and primary source on the white board. Students
then discussed novice suggestions of who a historian issomeone who knows about history
and what primary sources aresources we use. To move beyond these misconceptions, the
teacher takes the students through a mind walk to have them retell what they did during the
pervious 24 hours, as well as sources of evidence from others involved or artifacts that they left
behind. To conclude with the preliminary discussions of primary sourceswithout getting into
the gritty details of the processes of thinking students further examine primary sources from
World War II (i.e. rations, letters, diaries, and more), and concluded that primary sources are
tools that historians use to unveil the past (Waring and Robinson, 2012).
Attention is brought to this idea of tools, as students then have to use the historical
thinking skills, as previously discussed, to determine which ones are reliable. In other words, if
the teacher does not move beyond showing students the primary sources and fails to have
students explore their reliability within the context of answering an essential question, he or she
runs the risk of depriving students the chance to construct narratives from the chosen sources.
9

Primary sources alone do not provide the alternative narrative; rather they are the historians
tools for learning from the past (Epstein, 2012). Overall, the practices of historical thinking that
allow students to question the reliability of sources, while considering an alternative to a specific
narrative, are necessary skills for encountering a confusing society that is bombarded by onesided cable news, confusing imagery, and a growing abundance of information (Wineburg,
Martin, and Monte-Sano, 2013 p. ix- xii).
Conclusion
If current curricular practices in U.S. persist, students will walk away with a narrow, yet
personally unchallenged, understanding of the past. The study of history is not the recitation of
particular narrative, rather it takes that narrative, pulls it apart, and learns from the past, rather
than about it. For historys sake, U.S. history classrooms must expose young students to a variety
of sources that build a jagged path into the past, while providing guided opportunities for our
future leaders to draw authentic conclusions by thinking historically. The incorporation of
multiple perspectives into the national narrative, while employing historical thinking skills, are
tools that children and adolescents need in a shrinking global landscape that is becoming
increasingly interconnected and plagued with difficult tasksglobal warming, human rights
violations, and so much more. The task is arduous, and lawmakers may press for the perpetuation
of nationalistic pride, but the use of historical thinking skills must become inclusive to prepare
students for their global membership in the 21st Century.

10

Works Cited
Brown, J (2015). Eighth Graders' Flatline on NAEP U.S. History, Civics, and Geography Tests.
Education Week.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/04/student_achievement_in_us_hist.ht
ml?qs=8th+graders+flatline.
Barton, K (2011). From Learning Narratives to Thinking Historically. In William Benedict
Russell III Contemporary Social Studies: An Essential Reader (pp. 119-136). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Greenwalk, K. and Leahy, P. (2011). Situating the Nation: History Pedagogy for the 21st
Century. In William Benedict Russell III Contemporary Social Studies: An Essential
Reader (pp. 335- 356). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Griffin, S. (2013). The Development of the C3 Framework. National Council for the Social
studies, 2013. Social Education 77(4), pp 220221.
http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/se/7704/7704220.pdf.
Herczog, M. (n.d.) Good history teaching . . . provid[es] students with the skills they need to be
competent and engaged citizens. National History Education Clearinghouse.
http://teachinghistory.org/issues-and-research/roundtable-response/24062.
Herczog, M. (2014). Implementing the C3 Framework: Monitoring the Instructional Shifts.
Social Education, 78(4), 165-169.
Hubbard, R. (2014). Oklahoma May Scrap AP History for Focusing on Americas Bad Parts.
National Public Radio.
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/18/387302710/oklahoma-may-scrap-ap-history-for-focusingon-americas-bad-parts
Martin, D., & Wineburg, S. (2008). Seeing historical thinking. The History Teacher, 41(3), 1-15.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation's Report Card: U.S. History 2010.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2010/2011468.aspx.
National Center for Education Statistics (2015). New Results Show Eighth-Graders' Knowledge
of U.S. History, Geography, and Civics. http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hgc_2014/.
National Council for the Social Studies (2013). Scholarly Rationale for the C3 Framework.
The C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards, 82-91.
http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/c3/C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf
National Council for the Social Studies. Social Studies in the Era of No Child Left Behind.
http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/nclbera.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. Our History. http://www.p21.org/about-us/our-history.
PBS. Lyrics of the Freedom Songs: Soundtrack for a Revolution. American Experience.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/soundtrack-lyrics/.
Reisman, A., & Wineburg, S. (2008). Teaching the skill of contextualizing in history. The Social
Studies, 99(5), 202-207.
Stanford History Education Group (2012). Reconstruction SAC. Reading Like a Historian.
https://sheg.stanford.edu/reconstruction.
Swan, Kathy (2013). The Importance of the C3 Framework. National Council for the Social
Studies. Social Education 77(4), pp 222224.
http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/se/7704/7704222.pdf
Waring S. and Robinson K (2010). Developing Critical and Historical Thinking Skills in Middle
Grades Social Studies. Middle School Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1 (September 2010), pp. 2228 http://www.jstor.org/stable/23047653.
Wineburg, S., Reisman, A., & Fogo, B. (2007). Historical evidence and evidence of learning.
The International Journal of Social Education, 22(1), 146-154.
Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. The Phi Delta Kappan
Vol. 80, No. 7 (Mar., 1999), pp. 488-499.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439490?
11

seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Wineburg, S. (2008). Historical thinking is unnatural -- and immensely important. In Recent
Themes in Historical Thinking: Historians in Conversation, (Ed.) Donald A. Yerxa.
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 35-43.
Wineburg, S, Martin, D., and Monte-Sano, C (2013). Reading Like a Historian: Teaching
Literacy in Middle and High School History Classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press, pp ix-xii.
Wineburg, S. (2010). Thinking Like a Historian. Teaching with Primary Sources Quarterly.
Vol. 3, No. 1, Winter 2010.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/tps/quarterly/historical_thinking/article.html

12