Struggling with historical significance: Reasoning, reading, and writing processes

2.1 Reasoning about historical significance

Reasoning with respect to historical significance encompasses a claim about the significance of a particular person, event, or development and the arguments that support the claim. These arguments relate to aspects of change and continuity as well as causes and consequences (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018). The focus on (long-term) consequences provides opportunities to examine the relationships between events and between the past and the present (Hunt, 2000).

When students are asked to evaluate how significance is assigned to people in the past, they must understand that criteria are used in the process of assigning historical significance. Most criteria focus on the consequences of events in the past or on the importance of an event for the present time. (e. g., Hunt, 2000; see also Cercadillo, 2001; Counssel, 2004; Lévèsque, 2008). However, few studies exist that have investigated whether criteria for significance were applied when students argued for the significance of a past event or person.

In addition, students need to understand that historians are influenced by their historical context (Megill, 2007). Prior research shows students’ (basic) awareness of perspectives when they assign significance. As Peck (2010) shows, students with different ethnic backgrounds regard the same facts as significant, but they construct different narratives. These findings align with others (Barton, 2005; Cercadillo, 2001; Seixas, 1994; 1997; Yeager, et al., 2001). However, previous studies have shown that students struggle with comprehending historical phenomena in their historical context and students tend to consider history from one perspective (Carretero & Kriger, 2011; Cercadillo, 2001; van Drie et al., 2013). Consequently, students may not understand that the assignment of significance may develop over time and instead may consider significance as unchanging.

2.2 Reading historical accounts

In order to develop and support claims about the historical significance of a particular person, it is important to read what historians have written about the person in question. Most researchers focus on reading primary sources, and there is evidence that heuristics like sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization are useful (e. g., Wineburg, 1991 & 1998; see also List & Du, 2021; Reisman, 2012). In history education, however, little is known about reading historical accounts that contain historians’ perspectives (Cercadillo et al., 2017, Innes, 2000).

Reading historical accounts entails breaking down the text into small pieces in order to understand the main idea and how it is constructed (Schoenbach et al., 2012). This breakdown requires several higher order reading processes for reading accounts, such as determination of a reading objective, identifying the theme by summarizing, and discovering the relationships between words, sentences, and paragraphs (Schellings, et al., 2006). Therefore, students need to understand how a specific topic is presented linguistically and to recognize common historical language, like temporal clauses (Lorenzo & Dalton-Puffer, 2016). Using two or more contrasting accounts seems useful in order to understand an author’s main idea (Bråten & Strømsø, 2011). Furthermore, there is reason to believe that knowledge of text structures or genre features may improve reading comprehension (Léon & Carretero, 1995).

Previous research shows that (young) students regard accounts as records of the past (Wolfe & Goldman, 2005). That is, students may consider accounts as sources of information and may struggle with comprehending accounts as substantiated perspectives on the past.

2.3 Writing historical accounts

The result of reasoning about the significance of a person is often presented in a text written in an argumentative style. In order to write a convincing text in the domain of history, arguments should be underpinned with evidence extracted from historical sources, which are accurately interpreted and comprehended within the historical context (Monte-Sano, 2010).

Students need to apply several processes when they write a text. During the first phase, content is retrieved from memory and organized. Afterwards, the generated ideas are translated into written text. Finally, the written text is edited during the review phase. While writing, it is important to monitor all processes. Awareness of the audience is also required (Hayes, 2012; Kellog, 2008). General writing processes may be subdivided into microprocesses, such as planning, monitoring, evaluating, and revising (Martinez et al., 2015).

Coffin (2006) describes three main genres (recording, explanation, and arguing) that belong to writing in history. Every main genre contains several subgenres. The subgenre “discussion” is part of the main genre “arguing” and is relevant for this study. The general structure of a discussion contains an explanation of background and issues, description of perspectives, and position (Coffin, 2006). In order to describe perspectives of other historians and to develop an own position, researchers may use phrases and words like “in addition” and “however” to describe historians’ argumentation or to develop their own positions. Researchers may then use (temporal) clauses like “the consequences were significant or temporal” in order to make historical events more or less important (Lorenzo & Dalton-Puffer, 2016; Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006). In addition, former research has shown that sourcing might be particularly relevant for writing in order to convince the audience (List & Du, 2021).

Students may struggle with higher order functions of language like involving counterarguments and using weighting strategies in order to integrate both sides while describing their own position (van Drie et al., 2006; Lorenzo & Dalton-Puffer, 2016; behing Matteos et a., 2018). Given that students regard historical texts as records (Wolfe & Goldman, 2005), students may encounter problems with describing historians’ perspectives (by using their historical context).

2.4 Aim of the research

Our aim was to explore students’ reasoning about historical significance in the context of reading multiple accounts and writing a text while thinking aloud. To our knowledge, it is unknown how students reason, read, or write about contrasting historical accounts written in different times when they are tasked with developing their own perspective on the historical significance of a particular person.

To encompass these unknown factors, we formulated the following research question: How do reasoning, reading, and writing processes differ between 10th-grade students and experienced history teachers as they reason, read, and write about historical significance? We strove to answer the research question by analyzing think-aloud protocols and texts written by students and teachers.

3.1 Instruments

In order to answer our research question, we used the think-aloud method. Although the think-aloud method has some shortcomings, it is widely seen as a reliable method to gain insight into thinking and reasoning processes (e. g., Charters, 2003; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; van Someren et al., 1994; Wineburg 1991).

In order to strengthen the trustworthiness of the think-aloud method, methodological triangulation is recommended (Chartres, 2003). To achieve this end, we also asked participants to write a text, all of which were incorporated into our analysis.

3.2 Participants

Participants of this study were twelve 10th-grade higher secondary students and four history teachers. All names were blinded and participation was voluntary. An equal number of men and women participated.

Students were selected from two classes at a suburban school in the center of the Netherlands. None of the students had been diagnosed with learning problems or struggled with the Dutch language. The task was formulated and performed in L1. All students were unfamiliar with our study’s tasks and the concept of historical significance.

In order to trace students’ weaknesses, we asked four teachers from the same school who were familiar with reading historical accounts to participate in this study. All participating teachers possess a master’s degree in history and wrote a master’s thesis about the western world after 1850; their teaching experiences ranged from eight to 23 years.

3.3 Task

We developed a task that centered on the historical significance of Columbus. The topic of Columbus fits within the curriculum of 10th-grade higher secondary education in the Netherlands, and this topic was chosen in consultation with the involved school.

Participants were asked to write a text in which they evaluated how the significance of Columbus has developed over time and whether Columbus Day should still be celebrated, which invited students to think about Columbus’ significance in present times. This kind of authentic tasks (Appendix A) may elicit historical reasoning (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018).

Participants received two accounts that contained the perspectives of Washington Irving (nineteenth century) and Howard Zinn (twentieth century). Although Irving’s interpretation does not fit current historians’ standards, his interpretation of Columbus is seen as representative for many historians in the nineteenth century. In terms of uniting the people of the United States of America (USA), Irving presents Columbus as a relevant figure in the “discovery” and in the founding of the USA. Zinn holds Columbus responsible for the culture clashes between European people and the native Americans, ending in the extermination of Native Americans. Although Zinn was criticized (Wineburg, 2013), his account is seen as representative for many center-left historians in the twentieth century. These different perspectives might enable students to recognize both accounts as interpretations of the past. Both texts, in particular the language of the nineteenth century, are considered too difficult for students. Therefore, we reduced the texts to approximately 500 words and we avoid complex sentences. In order to recognize different arguments, we prefaced these using words and phrases such as “therefore,” “however,” and “in that time.” These words where always used as sentence-starter. A Flesch-Kincaid readability test (Kincaid et al., 1975) made clear that both texts were appropriate for 10th-grade students.

In order to discover that historians’ interpretations are influenced by their context, participants received additional background information about the political and cultural context of the USA in both the nineteenth and twentieth century. Students also received a brief biography of Columbus to ensure that all had access to the same factual information.

3.4 Procedure

To ensure that students possessed enough background knowledge, students sat through two introductory lessons regarding the consequences of Columbus’ journey. We provided no specific instruction on reasoning, reading, or writing. The first author—an experienced teacher—taught the lessons, which were based on principles that should enhance historical reasoning, for example, using open questions, interacting in small groups, and employing whole-class discussions (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018).

During the first lesson, the teacher instructed students on the consequences of Columbus for (some) people in (some) parts of Europe and America during Columbus’ life, after his dead, and in the present. The teacher also instructed students on the symbolic value of his journey (Hunt, 200). Afterwards, the consequences of Columbus’ journey for the inhabitants of Europe and the native Americans were discussed. The lesson finished with a short whole-class discussion. The second lesson centered on the different perspectives of Columbus’ journey. In pairs or triads, students discussed how inhabitants from different countries in the present could interpret Columbus. In a second round, students discussed how people living in different periods interpreted Columbus’ journey. Each small-group discussion was followed by a whole-class discussion. The participating teachers were not informed about the content of the lessons.

The three authors and a fourth person, who is a specialist in assessing students, gathered data on students and teachers. All think-aloud sessions with students and teachers were organized in a separate room at school during school hours. Participants wrote their text on the computer and were allowed to work on the task for 60 minutes. All sessions were videotaped and transcribed afterwards.

3.5 Analysis

All think-aloud data were coded using a coding scheme that consisted of five main categories: Task, Reading, Reasoning About Significance, Writing, and General—all of which were divided into subcategories relevant for our purposes (Appendix B).

The subcategories related to Task included Reading, Rereading, Comprehension, Monitoring, and Evaluation. The subcategories related to Reading were Reading, Rereading, Summarizing, Monitoring, and Evaluating (Kendeou et al., 2011; Schellings et al., 2006). The subcategories that fall under Reasoning About Significance were partly derived from studies on historical thinking and reasoning: Background Author, Contextualization, Explicit or Implicit Use of Criteria Used for Significance, Asking Historical Questions, and Comparing Historical Eras (Hunt, 2000; Reisman, 2012; van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018; Wineburg, 1991). The task required participants to take into account and to compare several points of view and to develop their own point of view, so we added the following subcategories: Authors’ Point of View, Own Point of View, Comparing Texts, and Comparing Authors’ Backgrounds. We derived these subcategories from research on reading multiple texts (Bråten & Strømsø, 2011; List & Du, 2021; Wineburg 1991) and matched them to the two main categories, Reading and Reasoning About Significance. We considered these subcategories important for history and thus placed them in the category Reasoning About Significance. The category Writing consisted of the following subcategories: Reading Written Text, Formulating Text, Writing, Monitoring Writing Process, Evaluating Written Text, and Planning Text. These processes are considered important in writing research (Hayes, 2012; Martinez et al., 2015). Finally, the category General consisted of non-relevant talk and general talk related to the task.

All protocols were divided into segments (i. e., the units of analysis) under the same topic: utterances. Consequently, utterances were of different lengths. Except for (re)reading, most utterances contained one or two (sometimes incomplete) sentences. Two coders (the first and second author) coded and discussed differences in coding and the quality of the coding scheme as well as two protocols in a training phase, after which interrater agreement was calculated for three student protocols and one teacher protocol (516 segments, about 19.9 % of all segments). Cohen’s Kappa was .81, which is considered good.

The written texts were analyzed using a coding scheme—a four-point scale rubric (Appendix C). The coding scheme consisted of three main categories (Text Structure, General Writing Quality, and Domain-Specific Reasoning) and was an adaption of a previously used coding scheme that included writing and domain-specific elements (van Drie et al., 2018). All categories were divided into subcategories. The first category, Text Structure, consisted of Introduction, Arguments Pro, Arguments Contra/Rebuttal, and Conclusion. The second category, General Writing Quality, consisted of Audience Awareness and Coherence. The final category, Domain-Specific Reasoning, consisted of Perspectives on Columbus, Contextualization, Reasoning About Significance, and Use of First-Order Knowledge.

All texts were coded by the first and third author. Two texts were coded and discussed in a training session. The remaining 14 texts were coded separately. In the second session, Cohen’s Kappa varied between .71 (Use Criteria Significance) and 1.00 (e. g., Conclusion), which is considered to be acceptable or good. All differences were discussed until an agreement was achieved.

For every protocol, we calculated the percentage of all utterances related to each subcategory. Based on these calculations, differences in the think-aloud protocols between students and teachers were identified in several rounds. Themes were selected and representative utterances were presented in the Results section. This is in line with the thematic-analysis method as proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006).

4.1 Think-aloud protocols

Table 1 presents the results of the analyses of the think-aloud protocols and shows that students’ protocols contain 154.33 utterances and teachers’ protocols 186.75. Participants mostly engaged in writing activities. Students, compared to teachers, engaged more often in activities related to the main categories Task (17.79 %) and Reading (26.21 %). Teachers, compared to students, showed more utterances related to the main categories Reasoning About Significance (10.97 %) and Writing (52.90 %).

Most students (11) started by reading all the materials and then wrote their texts. While writing, they searched for information in the materials by rereading. One student took some notes between reading and writing. Three teachers used another approach. After reading (parts of) the materials, they reflected on the text(s). Finally, the teachers wrote their text. In the next sections, we discuss reading, reasoning, and writing processes more in detail.

4.2 Written texts

Table 2 shows differences between the written texts of students and teachers. Teachers outperformed students on every aspect. The most outstanding differences are in the subcategory Introduction (teachers: 3.00, students: 1.50) and the main categories General Writing Quality (teachers: 3.13, students: 1.87) and Domain-Specific Reasoning (teachers: 3.44, students: 2.29). These results support the results of the think-aloud protocols. The differences can be illustrated using the texts from student Rayne and teacher Emma.

Although Rayne earned the highest score on his student text, there were remarkable differences between the introductions written by Rayne and Emma. Rayne started his introduction with three sentences about Columbus’ historical context and asked, “What could we learn from Columbus?” Subsequently, he wrote about the changing evaluation of Columbus and his own position. He finished his text, which was divided into clear paragraphs, with a short summary of his text. Teacher Emma wrote a clear and eye-catching introduction that outlined the structure of her text. The body contained a contextualized summary of the accounts of both historians as well as her own position. She finished her text with a short summary.

Compared to the teachers, none of the students related the historical context to the account of Irving or Zinn. Only student Rayne mentioned the changing historical circumstances in his text. Although he made no remarks about the historical context in his think-aloud protocol, Rayne paid attention to the changing historical circumstances of Irving and Zinn:

In the past, people were more respectful of Columbus because they were delighted with the independence. In the second part of the twentieth century, the African-Americans were fighting for their rights. Because the rising focus on the treatment of the Afro-Americans, the respect for Columbus declined.

However, Rayne did not relate this sentence to the account of Irving or Zinn. Teacher Emma used the historical context in order to comprehend the authors. She wrote for instance: “Hundred and fifty years later, the historian Howard Zinn (1980) speaks much more negatively about Columbus. At that time, people were much more critical about the role of Caucasians in history.”

The last noteworthy difference between students and teachers relates to their opinion about Columbus Day. All students used the language from the task, which asked them whether Columbus Day should be celebrated. All students answered this question with a clear statement—either affirming (student Ann: “because of the emerging trade”) or denying (student Rayne: “because someone else would have found the USA”). In contrast, the teachers’ answers were more complex; for example, they changed the word “celebrated” to “remembered” (teacher Emma: “in museums or memorials”). This change enabled teachers to incorporate different perspectives, to avoid sensitivities in the audience, and to defend the existence of a day on which all inhabitants of America could remember Columbus’ journey to America.