Attitudes
Toward History and the Way it is Taught
David
Buie
University
of Houston Downtown
This study examined the attitudes
that the adult population at large has about history and history
instruction. There were a total of 58
respondents that completed a ten question survey on their attitudes on history
in general and history instruction. To
that end, questions were asked about the source of historical knowledge; the
subject taught by their favorite teacher; their favorite and least favorite
class; and their opinion on why history is taught in schools and how to make it
better. The finding of the survey was
not always consistent with the research on the topic in general.
It
all facets of society there seem to be apathy towards history. Based on this, it seems that the majority of
people do not grasp the fact that events that happen in the past affect the
present and by understanding why those events happened, it could lead to
solutions to modern problems. It is a
valid promise that if students were more engaged in the learning of history
they would be more likely as adults to remain engaged in the active pursuit of
historic knowledge.
One
theory that prompted this research is that in general the common approaches
used to teach history in the United States for over a hundred years is largely
lacking in adequately teaching history to our students (VanSledright, 2011). One only has to look to examine past studies
of historical instruction to see this proved.
A study that was conducted in 1997 by the United States Department of
Education found on average students in grades one through four spent only 2.6
hours a week learning social studies of any kind (Perie, 1997). Another study conducted by the Center for
Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut surveyed 556
college seniors on United States history, United States government, famous
quotations, and popular culture. The
average score on the survey was 53% (Paxton, 2003). Another survey conducted by the Luntz
Research Company polled thirteen to seventeen year-olds and found only 41% of
those surveyed could correctly identify the three branches of the United States
Government (Murdock, 2011). Yet another
survey conducted by the United States Capitol Historical Society found that
only 34% correctly identified George Washington as the command general at the
battle of Yorktown while 37% erroneously answered Ulysses S. Grant (Capital
History, n.d.). This preponderance of
evidence seems to suggest that there is an on-going problem with how history is
taught.
Unfortunately
there is no panacea when it comes to fixing the problems with the teaching of
history because ultimately like everything else dealing with education you are
dealing with individuals. However, this
does not keep researchers and instructors from conducting research to find the
best practices to teach history. That
leads to the question what are the best practices to teach history in our
schools. VanSledright (2011), in The Challenge of Rethinking History Education,
looks at two very different high school United States history teachers within
one high school. One follows a
heritage-infused approach of teaching United States history that focused on
history as narrative building a “collective” memory in which students learn
about national heroes that toiled to create strong and united nation. While the other teacher takes quite a
different approach. This teacher
approaches history as its own discipline.
This teacher uses primary sources and stresses critical thinking and
project based learning. Though these two
approaches are being widely studied, they are not the only ways to increase
engagement in history that is being studied.
Though they may be the most widely studied. Even though teachers know the best practices
to use based on research, they do not always follow those best practices.
Literature
Review
The
range of research on effective instruction of history is great and covers
topics as diverse as the importance of subject knowledge, teaching history as a
narrative, and the integration of historical fiction as a tool that enriches
historical instruction. Though the study
of history as a narrative is perhaps the most studied instruction strategy,
teaching history as a narrative is not just a phenomenon found in the United
States. In one study on teaching history
as a narrative carried out in the United Kingdom it was found that “English
schools should teach core British values, such as free speech, the rule of law,
mutual tolerance, and respect for equal rights through the lends of history” (Andrews,
McGlynn, & Mycock, 2010, p. 301).
This mirrors an American study that states, “Repetition of the American
nation building story in United States history class in grade school function
as a potentially productive vehicle to become an American…” (VanSledright,
2008, p. 110). In another study, it was
found when history is taught as a narrative it aids students in seeing an
overview that is lacking when the focus is only on critical thinking skills (Hawkey,
2004). In another study it was found
that when used in conjunction with frameworks, it helps students make
connections that they may not otherwise make (Davies, 2011). Though there are numerous accounts of this
approach being used successfully there are weaknesses to be found. As VanSledright (2008) points out the American
history narrative arc is mainly concerned with military, economic, and
political events from British colonization on through to the modern day. This Anglo-Centric “big picture” can be
off-putting to someone who does not fit into that narrative (VanSledright, 2008,
p. 114). However, VanSledright (2008) also
points out that one possible solution might be to replace a national arc with
local ones though he agrees it would be hard to do for large and ethnically
diverse states like Texas and California.
Another drawback that is pointed out by Hawkey (2004) is that
“narratives are usually counterposed to analysis” (p.35). So what can happen is students are taught a
narrative and though they know that particular “story” they lack the higher
level skills to investigate primary sources in order to their own answers.
Sandwell
(2005) points out that throughout North American history teachers
overwhelmingly believe history constitutes a strong linear narrative. In contrast professional historians have come
to understand that history is a process of questioning evidence and drawing
conclusions based on evidence from the past (Sandwell, 2005). Sandwell (2005) found overwhelmingly that
even after teaching students to “do history” that instead of investigating
sources they move directly to tools like search engines to find a website they
feel will give them the answer (p. 12).
It is this kind of thinking that reduces history to a series of
indisputable facts (Sandwell, 2005).
Wiersma
(2008) points out in a study of the teaching methods of high school history
teachers that the majority of history teachers follow the traditional model of
teacher centered lecture and rote memorization.
Even though research suggests that this is not the best teaching
practice, the author suggests that constructivist teaching methods where
students actively seek out the answers on their own is the better pedagogical
course of action (Wiersma, 2008). Seghi
writes, “In order to help our students understand the past they need to be
engaged in learning about it” (Seghi, 2012, p. 1). Seghi (2012) also stresses the importance of
using primary sources in conjunction with problem based learning. The goal of problem based learning is to help
students think critically (Seghi, 2012).
The same can be said of other forms of constructivist learning; both
stress the use of primary source material and engage students in higher levels
of thinking.
Drake
and Brown (2003) draw on experience and research to outline a systematic
approach to utilizing primary sources as well as an examination on literature
on the subject of historical thinking.
The approach discussed is designed around the concept of dividing
documents into first order, second order, and third order (Drake & Brown,
2003). A first order document is one
that a teacher would use to design a lesson around or in other words is a
document that communicates an important concept (Drake & Brown, 2003). Second order documents are primary sources
that support or challenge the first order document (Drake & Brown, 2003). These may be made up of documents,
photographs, and tables (Drake & Brown, 2003). Lastly, third order documents are primary
sources that relate to the original document (Drake & Brown, 2003). The biggest difference between this approach
and the other methods using primary sources is that in this approach it blends
a skills approach with a narrative approach (Drake & Brown, 2003). By using both primary sources and a
narrative, this approach takes the best from both approaches in that it
provides the framework of the narrative while building high-level processes.
This
leads to the question why do not more teachers engage students in
interpretation. Barton and Levstik points
out that over the past fifteen years a lot of time and research have been
devoted to reforming historical instruction.
The majority of the research points to the fact that students do not get
a full historical education if they are just taught a story of past
events. Students must be taught how such
stories are formed in order to get a full historical education. In order to do that, students must be able to
analyze and interpret primary sources.
However, many teachers remain unfazed by these concerns and require
students to read textbooks and listen to lectures. This seems to be because though they know the
pedagogy they lack content knowledge or more precisely lack the knowledge of
how to teach students to analyze history.
Though there are studies that show that this is not the case and that
teachers with the knowledge in some cases are just apathetic. The apathy does not seem to be confined to long-term
teachers as shown in a survey of pre-service teachers who had engaged in a
document based methods in class. The
main reason for this seems to be because of fear in teachers that they would
lose control of their classrooms and not be able to cover the required
curriculum. So, in short, it is a
curricular issue more than a pedagogical issue (Barton & Levstik, 2003). Robert Bain agrees with Barton and
Levstik. Bain points out educational
critics have singled out high school history teaching as the model of poor
pedagogy (Bain, 2005). Unprepared
teachers turn history into the driest of school subjects (Bain, 2005). The would-be reformers agree that teachers
need to “move beyond lecture, recitation, and textbooks” (Bain, 2005, p. 179).
However, there is no consensus among reformers.
Some reformers stress narrative approaches like Hawkey, while others
propose a more problem based approach.
However, again like Barton and Levstik point out, Bain (2005) discusses
“the challenges high school history teachers confront each day when facing
large classes predefined course goals and required textbooks” (p. 180). One way Bain (2005) suggests is to cast
curricular objectives as historical problems.
By placing inquiry at the heart of the instruction, students become
engaged and begin to think historically.
This, however, requires the teacher to work harder than just the dry
lecture and rote memorization. Bain (2005)
suggests “That history teachers in the United States must play a form of
instructional Jeopardy by inventing
big questions to fit curricular answers” (p. 182). To do this, teachers must first design
problems that provide links across objectives.
Secondly, teachers must pay attention to the multifaceted of historical
knowledge while carefully considering the hidden challenges that their students
may face. Lastly, the problems must be
able to fit into the proper time frame, i.e. period, unit, etc. By problematizing history it allows students
to create their own narratives. However,
there are some ideas that must first be understood by students and according to
Bain (2005) these are history-as-event and history-as-account. By instilling these concepts into students it
increases their ability to understand historical evidence which allows for
better understanding of history.
Yilmaz
(2008-2009) discusses the nature of history and describes two distinct and
contrasting perspectives. The first is history
as science or the assimilationist view and the other history as art, also
called the idealistic view, though she states that though art and science are
diametrically opposed one can take a more holistic approach anywhere along the
continuum between purely art or purely science.
Yilmaz (2008-2009) also states the purpose for teaching history “is to
promote social understanding and student efficacy” (p. 40). Another tool that some school districts are
looking to for help in improving its history instruction is the Teaching
American History grant project. Ragland
(2007) examines a three year professional development program to improve teacher’s
knowledge, understanding, and teaching strategies. Ragland (2007) describes how each session was
setup, first with teachers working with professional historians modeling the
practices of doing history and then in the second session teachers were
provided with not only pedagogical knowledge but pedagogical content knowledge,
or in other words how to teach history effectively.
The
results of the professional development program were striking. Before participation in the program history
teachers tended to think of history as nothing more than a bunch of dates,
names, and places. This is quite
different than professional historians who see history as something to do, not
something to be told. This helped to
address the lack of content knowledge among teachers, of which only seven of
twenty teachers in the initial program had history degrees. The program also demonstrated the need to add
engaging activities that actually allowed students to do history.
Another
area of research on history education is finding out attitudes of pre-service
history teachers. Virta (2002) did this
by analyzing the essays of eighteen pre-service teachers written during their
education and interviews with five of the respondents. She found that the majority of the
respondents had in the past a teacher that they referred to as
exceptional. Of those students, most had
a strong desire to emulate this teacher, even when the teacher’s methods are
what would be considered out of date; while simultaneously chastising teachers
for poor teaching methods even when the problem was not necessarily pedagogical. The most telling is the tendency of
pre-service teachers nostalgically wanting to teach class like they had been taught. Couple this with issues of classroom
management, then is it any wonder that an inexperienced teacher falls back on
teaching history the way they had been taught (Virta, 2002).
The
idea of teaching students and inexperienced teachers falling back into what is
comfortable is also discussed in the 2011 survey done by Bain and Harris. In their study four pre-service and six
in-service teachers were given a stack of seemingly random stack of cards
listing eighteen historical events and asked to organize the cards into a big
historical picture (Harris & Bain, 2011).
The differences among the ten teachers were stunning. The teachers drew connections or organized
along tempro-spatial scales; however, the more experienced teachers built
connections among events that created a coherent narrative that related to real
world concepts while inexperienced teachers were more likely to simply put
cards in chronological order or simply in categories. This seemed to point to the inexperienced
teacher’s lack of content knowledge which seemed to hamper their ability to
make meaningful connections for their students (Harris & Bain, 2011, p. 13).
Content
knowledge is important in creating a framework and teaching higher order
thinking. However, one must first engage
students. This is the subject of the
article by Turk, Klein, and Dickstein (2007) in which they advocate a creative
way of engaging students by using fictional literature build on engagement by
acting as giving an insight into a historical subject and to act as a
metaphorical hook to get students interested in history by making it more real. The ideal of fiction as history is also
covered by Metzger who points out how invasive historical movies have become
not only in the “popular history narrative” but also in history classrooms (p. 67). Though he does not discount the engaging
effect of these made for entertainment films.
He does, however, caution that a good resource used badly can be
detrimental. So in order to keep films
from doing damage to the historical knowledge of students, Metzger (2007) points
out that students should be taught to analyze films as they would any source by
doing this it opens up a wide range of teaching possibilities. The literature and research on teaching
history is as varied as history and no single work can touch on it all. Like a great many things related to
educational research one kind find someone to agree they are doing the best
thing that is why it is important that educators and instructors to read the
research and evaluate the sources just as a historian would evaluate any
primary source. Though the research
sighted in this study shows that there is a strong desire by students to be
given the right answer. When in reality
it comes to the actual practice of history, asking the right question is far
more important than the right answer.
Method
Participants
The
participants of the survey included a total of fifty-eight volunteers of
undeterminable gender, age, and location.
The participants were required to be eighteen years of age and to have
taken at least one history class. The
participants were asked to state their education level. Of the fifty-eight responses, there was one
participant with a doctoral degree which accounted for 1.8% of the
participants. There were also five
participants with a master’s degree which accounted for 8.8% of the
participants. There were also twenty
participants with a bachelor’s degree which accounted for 35.1% of the
participants. Another twenty-seven
participants had a high school degree which accounted for 47.4% of the
participants. And lastly, there were four participants without a high school
degree which accounted for 7% of the participants and there was one participant
that abstained from answering that question.
Materials
The
questionnaire, Attitudes Concerning History Instruction and History in General,
was measured through an online survey.
The participants were asked to complete a total of ten questions. These questions consisted of three multiple
choice close ended, two multiple choice, and five short answer. The participants were asked about their
favorite and least favorite class, the source of historical knowledge, the
class their favorite teacher taught, along with their current education level,
the industry they are currently employed in or about to go into, and if the
instruction was relevant to that industry.
Procedure
A
link with a request for participation in the survey was posted on a social
media website along with a request that participants re-post the survey request
in a method known as snowball sampling.
The survey was to be completed online and complied by a research
website. The survey was free of any
identifiers and as such they were completely anonymous. The participants were required to read an
electronically accept the terms on an informed consent form prior to completing
the survey. Each survey could only be
completed once from an individual computer.
Results
The
findings of the survey were interesting.
As a whole, the group of participants was more educated than the general
public. The sample population was made up of 93% of at least a high school
education which is more than the United States at large, which only has about a
75% graduation rate.
The
respondents were asked what their favorite class was and a total of 34.5% (20
participants) listed history as their favorite class. This was followed by math at 20.7% (12 participants). Next was science as the favorite class with
10.3% (6 participants) and then English with 6.9% (4 participants). The last classification of classes fell into
“other” which included such diverse classes as Spanish, psychology, and digital
illustration. This classification
accounted for 31% (18 participants).
Conversely, respondents were also asked what their least favorite class
was and a total of 41.4% (24 participants) listed some form of
mathematics. This was followed by
history with 19% (11 participants). Only
three of these eleven participants said math was their favorite subject. Next was English with 15.5% (9 participants). Next was science which had 13.8% (8
participants). The “other”
classification came in last with a total of 10.3% (6 participants). Some of the classes listed in the “other”
category were business management, physical education, and games. This illustrated an interesting finding that
two classes were listed as both the favorite and least favorite. These two classes were math and history,
which lead one to think that these classes illicit diametrically opposed responses.
Another question
asked the respondents what class their favorite teacher taught. The “other” classification included subjects
such as agriculture, political science, and inter-personal communions. This classification accounted for 27.6% (16
of the participants). This was followed by history and English with 24.1% (14
of the participants each). Next was
science with 13.8% (8 of the participants) and math with 10.3% (6 of the
participants). There were four
participants that reported that they had no favorite teacher, which accounted
for 6.9%. The respondents were also
asked about their feeling about history in general. There were 54.4% of the participants (31 of
the participants) that stated they liked their history class while 24.6% (14 of
the participants) stated they like history but did not like their history
class. Another 17.5% (10 of the
participants) stated that they were apathetic towards history and 3.5% (2 of
the participants) stated that they hated history.
Next,
the respondents were asked what industry they were currently employed. The largest section was manufacturing with
37.9% (22 of the participants) followed by education with 20.7% (12 of the
participants). The next type of industry
was service at 17.2% (10 of the participants) and then there was medical with
13.8% (8 of the participants). Last was
the legal field with 5.2% (3 of the participants).
Then
the respondents were asked if they felt their current or past classes were
relevant in their everyday life. A total
of 89.7% (52 of the participants) answered yes while only 8.6% (5 of the
participants) responded with no. Of the
respondents that answered affirmatively, English had the most responses with
86.5% (45 participants). This was
followed by math with 78.8% (41 participants) with social studies being next at
80.8% (42 participants) and then there was science with 59.6% (31
participants). There were also ten
participants (19.2%) that said “other” which among those that listed other
accounting, typing, and computers. Then
the respondents were asked which source they get their historical knowledge. There were 65.5% (38 of the participants) that
answered documentaries/history channel while 60.3% (35 of the participants)
answered past or current history classes.
Another 43.1% (25 of the participants) answered self-study while 25.9%
(15 of the participants) answered historical fiction/literature. Lastly, historically based Hollywood movies
were chosen by 20.7% (12 of the participants).
Respondents
were also asked why they thought history was taught in school. The responses to this question were varied as
it was an open ended question; however, the responses were placed in four
categories. The first category was
cultural identification which accounted for 44.8% (26 of the
participants). The second category was
avoiding the mistakes of the past and this category received 20.7% (12 of the
participants). The third category was
purely intellectual reasons and this category received 29.3% (17 of the participants). The last category had three responses that
were grouped into a category called “not applicable” and this accounted for
5.2% of the participants. This last
category is called “not applicable” because of responses like “too many
notes/lectures” or “I think it is currently taught so that students can pass
the STAAR exam” or “don’t know”.
Lastly,
respondents were asked what could be done to improve instruction in history
classes. As with the previous question
this was an open-ended response.
Respondents offered many varied ideas on how to improve history
instruction; however, the ideas were placed into six categories. The categories getting the most responses
were that the teacher should be a more engaging speaker and provide a more
engaging narrative. There were 22.4% (13
of the participants) that felt this way.
The same number felt that curriculums should allow for more creative
lesson plans. There were 15.5% (9 of the
participants) that felt there should be more active/hands on study of history
while 17.2% (10 of the participants) felt teachers should create more
relevance/connections to today’s students.
The last category received 15.5% (9 of the participants also) that were
either inappropriate to the question or did not have an opinion.
The survey also
seemed to disprove the hypothesis that there would be a statistical correlation
between respondent’s favorite class and the class that their favorite teacher
taught; however after performing a Chi Square there proved to be no significant
correlation (see figure 1).
This
survey looks at the attitudes that the individual formed as a result of the
historical instruction they received. By
understanding those attitudes, researchers can determine ways to improve
instruction. By determining where poor
attitudes are formed, changes can be made to fix those issues. Conversely, by determining where good
attitudes are formed, researchers can develop teaching strategies to reinforce
those behaviors. The amount of research
on the subject of history is great and there are some items that were lightly
touched on in this survey. One area is why
history is taught in schools, such as the one, “In an effort to come to some
reasonable terms with the firm hold a triumphal national narrative has over the
way history education or heritage education if you will—is practiced in the
United States. I have labored to show it
serves a powerful sociocultural purpose (VanSledright, 2008, p.137). This is comparable to what I found in the
survey when asked “why history is taught in schools”. There were 44.9% of the participants that
gave an answer that mirrored the reason given by VanSledright by a considerable
margin. The response with the next
highest respondents for purely intellectual reasons was 29.3%. Some 16.5% points lower, though the survey
seems to confirm VanSledright. The
survey does not support Metzger (2007):
It must be clear
to even the most academic of historians that the visual media have become
(perhaps) the chief conveyor of public history, that for every person who reads
a book on a historical topic about which a film has been made…many millions of
people are likely to encounter that same past on the screen (p. 67).
In the results section above, the
findings for the question “historical knowledge” confirm that historically
themed movies are not the “chief conveyor of public history” as this category
received the fewest responses.
As
noted, the survey was conducted using a snowball sampling and there are both
advantages and disadvantages to this method.
The advantages are mainly in that a sample can be obtained quickly,
particularly when it is done online.
However, the sample cannot generally be applied to the population at
large because it is not a truly random sample.
The advantage of time needed to obtain a sample population made it the
best choice for this survey and despite the drawback found in the sample method
this survey is a good jumping off point for several points of research
including the original research design of the survey. In fact, it would be interesting to
re-administer this survey with a random sample to test if there would be a
significant difference and if so, would it be across the whole survey or only
in certain aspects. Because of time
constraints, this survey and the responses could not be analyzed to the extent
the subject matter deserved. However, I
think the answers to the survey do raise some thought provoking data and does
have some merit.
For
instance, the answer to the question concerning the source of historical
knowledge along with the answers given for the question on how to improve
education, clearly show that the respondents to the questionnaire are most
concerned with the history narrative.
They want to be told what they need to know and do not want to go
through the “chore” of verifying sources or weighing the merit of conflicting
accounts of an event. Based on this, it
appears the problem is not necessarily instruction but attitudes that need to
be changed. The emphasis should be
shifted getting the right answer to how do you get the right answer.
Andrews, R., McGlynn, C., &
Mycock, A. (2010). National pride and
students’
attitudes towards
history: An exploratory study. Educational
Studies, 36(3), 299-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690903424782.
Bain, R. B. (2005). “They thought the world was flat?”: Applying the principles of how people
learn in teaching
high school history. In J. Bransford
& S. Donovan (Eds.), How students
learn: History, mathematics, and science
in the classroom (pp. 179-214).
Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11100&page=179.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S.
(2003). Why don’t more history teachers
engage students in
interpretation? Social
Education, 67(6), 358-361. Retrieved
from http://worldroom.tamu.edu/Presentations/Making%20History%20Come%20Alive/Making%20History%20Come%20Alive%20CD/Articles/History%20in%20the%20Classroom/Why%20Don%27t%20More%20History%20Teachers%20Engage%20Students.pdf.
Capitol History. (n.d.).
Retrieved from
http://uschscapitolhistory.uschs.org/articles/uschs_articles-08.htm.
Davies, I. (Ed.). (2011).
Debates in history teaching. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Drake, F. D., & Brown, S. D.
(2003). A systematic approach to improve
students’ historical
thinking. The
History Teacher, 36(4), 465-489.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555575.
Harris,
L. & Bain, R. B. (2011). Pedagogical
content knowledge for world history teachers:
bridging the gap between knowing and teaching. American
Educator, 35(2), 13-16. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ931210.
Hawkey, K. (2004). Narrative in
classroom history. The Curriculum Journal, 15(1),
35-44.
http://10.1080/0958517042000189461.
Metzer,
S. A. (2007). Pedagogy and the
historical feature film: Toward
historical literacy. Film
&
History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of
Film and Television Studies, 37(2),
67-75. http://10.1353/flm.2007.0058
Murdock, D. (2011, December
17). Civic ignorance threatens American
liberty. Retrieved from
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4667.
Paxton, R. (2003). Don’t know much about history—never did
(Telephone surveys reveal
college students’
lack of historical knowledge). Phi Delta Kappan, 85(4), 264-273.
Perie, M., American Institutes for
Research in the Behavioral Sciences, W. C., & And, O.
(1997). Time Spent
Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools. Comparisons across
Community, School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics. Statistical Analysis
Report.
Ragland,
R. G. (2007). Changing secondary
teachers’ views of teaching American history.
The
History Teacher,
40(2), 219-246. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036989.
Sandwell, R. (2005). School history versus the historians. International
Journa of Social
Education, 20(1), 9-15. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ718741
Seghi, L. (2012). Engagement in the history classroom: Problem-based learning and primary
sources. The
Councilor: A Journal of the Social
Studies, 73(1), 1-4. Retrieved from
https://ojcs.siue.edu/ojs/index.php/jicss/article/view/2631/617.
Turk, D. B., Klein, E., &
Dickstein, S. (2007). Mingling “Fact” with “fiction”: Strategies for
integrating
literature into history and social studies classrooms. The
History Teacher, 40(3), 397-406. Retrieved
from http://www.thehistoryteacher.org/main.html.
VanSledright, B. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical
knowledge, and school history
education. Review
of Research in Education, 32(109),
109-146.
http://rre.sagepub.com/content/32/1/109.
VanSledright, B. (2011). The
challenge of rethinking history education:
On practices, theories,
and policy. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Virta,
A. (2002). Becoming a history
teacher: Observations on the beliefs and
growth of student
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6),
687-698. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X02000288.
Wiersma, A. (2008). A study of the teaching methods of high
school history teachers. The
Social Studies, 99(3), 111-116. Retrieved from http://heldref.metapress.com.ezproxy.uhd.edu/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3200/TSSS.99.3.111-116
Yilmaz,
K. (2008-2009). A vision of history
teaching and learning: thoughts on history
education in secondary schools. The
High School Journal, 92(2), 37-46.
