An Introduction to Historical Thinking
One of the challenges of asking educators to engage their students in history as a discipline-based form of inquiry involving the methods and mentalities of historians, is that few teachers have experienced learning history in this way. When most people encounter history in schools, they are generally only exposed to the end product of a historian’s work –– a particular historical narrative ––– which often comes in the form of a largely celebratory nation-building narrative recounting the formation of the country. Within this traditional approach to history education, historical facts and knowledge are presented as an authoritative, authorless, and seemingly objective account of events as they happened.
This treatment of history in turn almost inevitably leads to cognitively unchallenging forms of pedagogy that promote memorization and regurgitation of pre-given historical ‘facts’ in the form of a long list of historical names, dates, and developments. In describing the way the teaching of history most often occurs in schools, Seixas and Morton (2013) use the metaphor of a play where students too often see only the performance, but are never brought into the process of how the script was created, the ways actors learn and practice their lines, or “how the ropes and pulleys work that make the play possible” (p. 3). A great deal of research suggests that traditional transmission based approaches to the study of history continues to dominate in most school settings.
However, it does not have to be this way. To help re-imagine what history education could alternatively look like if taught as a discipline, it is helpful to begin by outlining the difference between the past and history. As Seixas and Morton (2013) outline, the past can be understood as comprised of everything that has ever happened over all time, while, in contrast, “histories are the stories we tell about the past” (p. 1). In using the plural histories, rather than the singular history, Seixas and Morton help us to appreciate that history is not a simple retelling of the past ‘as it was.’ This is because, as they explain, the past does not present itself as an already fully formed singular story just waiting to be discovered by a historian (p. 2). Rather, “a gap exists between the present we live in and the infinite, unorganized, and unknowable everything that ever happened” (p. 1).
This gap between an infinite and unorganized past and the historian in the present, subsequently gives rise to a number of fundamental questions that historians as a disciplinary community have sought to provide responses. These questions include:
To find viable responses to these key historical questions, historians have developed a generally accepted set of methods and principles, which allow them to interpret the evidence of the past (i.e., journals, newspapers, and artifacts such as pottery) to generate the stories of history (Seixas & Morton, 2013, p. 2).
Over the last two decades, Peter Seixas and colleagues at the Historical Thinking Project have worked to make the principles that make historical inquiry different from other modes of thought and research accessible to teachers. In doing so they have created the conceptual framework of historical thinking that provides students with the opportunity to gain an increasingly deeper understanding into the ways historians transform the past into historical accounts and how students can begin to construct histories for themselves (Seixas & Morton, 2013, p. 3). Historical thinking thus provides students insight into “not only what happened in the past, but also how what happened was constructed” (Fallace & Neem, 2005, p. 332).
To achieve this end, Peter Seixas and his colleagues have identified six structural historical thinking concepts that can be employed to help students take part in the discipline of history. Through engaging in historical thinking students are apprenticed into how to: 1) establish historical significance, 2) use evidence, 3) identify continuity and change, 4) analyze cause and consequence, 5) take on historical perspectives, and 6) understand the ethical dimension of history (pp. 3-9).
Recently, TC2-The Critical Thinking Consortium has created a series of six videos that outline, explain, and provide classroom examples for their interpretation of these six historical thinking concepts: evidence and interpretation, historical perspective, continuity and change, ethical judgment, cause and consequence, and historical significance.
For the most up to date and refined articulation of historical thinking, that includes a rich array of classroom examples, please see The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts by Peter Seixas and Thomas Morton, referenced throughout this chapter. To find primary source materials, books, articles, and lesson plans at various grade levels to further help engage students in historical thinking visit the Historical Thinking Project website, as well as the History Education Network website. Finally, to gain a better understanding of how to assess student understanding of the six historical thinking concepts see this article by Peter Seixas entitled Teacher Notes: Benchmarks of Historical Thinking A Framework for Assessment in Canada.
References:
Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. (2011). The historical thinking project. Retrieved from http://historicalthinking.ca/
Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. (2011). Historical thinking concepts. Retrieved from http://historicalthinking.ca/historical-thinking-concepts
Fallace, T., & Neem, J. (2005). Historiographical thinking: Towards a new approach to preparing history teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 329-346.
The History Education Network (2011). Resources for teaching historical thinking in the classroom. Retrieved from http://thenhier.ca/en/content/resources-teaching-historical-thinking-classroom
The History Education Network. (2011). Peter Seixas. [Image]. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from: http://thenhier.ca/en/content/seixas-peter
Seixas, P. & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.
Seixas, P. (2006). Teacher notes: Benchmarks of historical thinking a framework for assessment in Canada. UBC: Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr8/tns/tn1.pdf
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Video resources: Thinking about history. Retrieved from http://tc2.ca/en/teaching-resources/online-resource-collections/thinking-about-history.php
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Cause and consequence. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yImH3L1Vhng
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Continuity and change. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFHyQmk1khw
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Ethical judgement. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wbw08jPRus
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Evidence and interpretation. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzUXZb3xE4
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Historical perspective. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQbBFr7cO8
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Historical significance. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wYq1RGBNg
This treatment of history in turn almost inevitably leads to cognitively unchallenging forms of pedagogy that promote memorization and regurgitation of pre-given historical ‘facts’ in the form of a long list of historical names, dates, and developments. In describing the way the teaching of history most often occurs in schools, Seixas and Morton (2013) use the metaphor of a play where students too often see only the performance, but are never brought into the process of how the script was created, the ways actors learn and practice their lines, or “how the ropes and pulleys work that make the play possible” (p. 3). A great deal of research suggests that traditional transmission based approaches to the study of history continues to dominate in most school settings.
However, it does not have to be this way. To help re-imagine what history education could alternatively look like if taught as a discipline, it is helpful to begin by outlining the difference between the past and history. As Seixas and Morton (2013) outline, the past can be understood as comprised of everything that has ever happened over all time, while, in contrast, “histories are the stories we tell about the past” (p. 1). In using the plural histories, rather than the singular history, Seixas and Morton help us to appreciate that history is not a simple retelling of the past ‘as it was.’ This is because, as they explain, the past does not present itself as an already fully formed singular story just waiting to be discovered by a historian (p. 2). Rather, “a gap exists between the present we live in and the infinite, unorganized, and unknowable everything that ever happened” (p. 1).
This gap between an infinite and unorganized past and the historian in the present, subsequently gives rise to a number of fundamental questions that historians as a disciplinary community have sought to provide responses. These questions include:
- How do we know what we know about the past?
- How can we represent the knowledge of something that is no longer here (i.e., the past)?
- What are the relationships between us, today, and those who lived in the past?
- What do we believe when two accounts of the same event conflict with each other? (Seixas & Morton, 2013, p. 2)
To find viable responses to these key historical questions, historians have developed a generally accepted set of methods and principles, which allow them to interpret the evidence of the past (i.e., journals, newspapers, and artifacts such as pottery) to generate the stories of history (Seixas & Morton, 2013, p. 2).
Over the last two decades, Peter Seixas and colleagues at the Historical Thinking Project have worked to make the principles that make historical inquiry different from other modes of thought and research accessible to teachers. In doing so they have created the conceptual framework of historical thinking that provides students with the opportunity to gain an increasingly deeper understanding into the ways historians transform the past into historical accounts and how students can begin to construct histories for themselves (Seixas & Morton, 2013, p. 3). Historical thinking thus provides students insight into “not only what happened in the past, but also how what happened was constructed” (Fallace & Neem, 2005, p. 332).
To achieve this end, Peter Seixas and his colleagues have identified six structural historical thinking concepts that can be employed to help students take part in the discipline of history. Through engaging in historical thinking students are apprenticed into how to: 1) establish historical significance, 2) use evidence, 3) identify continuity and change, 4) analyze cause and consequence, 5) take on historical perspectives, and 6) understand the ethical dimension of history (pp. 3-9).
Recently, TC2-The Critical Thinking Consortium has created a series of six videos that outline, explain, and provide classroom examples for their interpretation of these six historical thinking concepts: evidence and interpretation, historical perspective, continuity and change, ethical judgment, cause and consequence, and historical significance.
For the most up to date and refined articulation of historical thinking, that includes a rich array of classroom examples, please see The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts by Peter Seixas and Thomas Morton, referenced throughout this chapter. To find primary source materials, books, articles, and lesson plans at various grade levels to further help engage students in historical thinking visit the Historical Thinking Project website, as well as the History Education Network website. Finally, to gain a better understanding of how to assess student understanding of the six historical thinking concepts see this article by Peter Seixas entitled Teacher Notes: Benchmarks of Historical Thinking A Framework for Assessment in Canada.
References:
Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. (2011). The historical thinking project. Retrieved from http://historicalthinking.ca/
Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. (2011). Historical thinking concepts. Retrieved from http://historicalthinking.ca/historical-thinking-concepts
Fallace, T., & Neem, J. (2005). Historiographical thinking: Towards a new approach to preparing history teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 329-346.
The History Education Network (2011). Resources for teaching historical thinking in the classroom. Retrieved from http://thenhier.ca/en/content/resources-teaching-historical-thinking-classroom
The History Education Network. (2011). Peter Seixas. [Image]. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from: http://thenhier.ca/en/content/seixas-peter
Seixas, P. & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.
Seixas, P. (2006). Teacher notes: Benchmarks of historical thinking a framework for assessment in Canada. UBC: Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr8/tns/tn1.pdf
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Video resources: Thinking about history. Retrieved from http://tc2.ca/en/teaching-resources/online-resource-collections/thinking-about-history.php
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Cause and consequence. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yImH3L1Vhng
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Continuity and change. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFHyQmk1khw
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Ethical judgement. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wbw08jPRus
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Evidence and interpretation. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzUXZb3xE4
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Historical perspective. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQbBFr7cO8
TC2: The Critical Thinking Consortium (2011). Historical significance. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wYq1RGBNg