historical significance assignment

Making History Modules - HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Informed by their worldview, and based on the evidence they emphasize and the questions they ask, historians determine what is most significant to know about the past. Our understanding of the past varies over time and shifts according to the positionality of the author.

The below exercises offer opportunities to explicitly introduce students to the concept of significance.

Pre-Lesson 

Understanding Historical Significance : Students use their own life experiences as a means of exploring how historians determine significance.

Content Application

Each of these scaffolds can be customized to support your unit of study while reinforcing the historical thinking concept.  

• Constructing Narratives - Timeline Analysis
• Competing Timelines
• Comparing Historical Arguments
• Example:  WWII Timelines

Critical Pedagogy

• Interrogate a Source - Implied Ethical Judgment
• Asking Critical Questions of the Past

Culminating Project

Creating a Memorial : Students create a memorial to a person, group or event of significance.

  Connection to Local History

Field Study Guide : Use this activity while on a visit to a local memorial or museum.

Landmark Analysis : Use this tool to help students analyze a local landmark, memorial, or statue.

Teaching Reflection

Making History Teaching Reflection: Use this as a tool to refine and revise teaching strategies within this module.

Related Model Lesson  

• Introduction to Historiography (8th grade)
• Introduction to Historiography (10th grade) 
• Memorializing the Past (4th/8th grade)

A Note on Supporting Literacy Development: We encourage you to refer to these UCBHSSP planning templates as you make use of the Making History modules. Additional UCBHSSP strategies can be found in our literacy handbook, Access for All Learners .

• Historical Knowledge
• Significance

Historical significance explained

Since human history covers a huge span of time and involved countless billions of individuals, there is no possible way that we could study them all.

Therefore, when we study the past, we have to choose only a few people and events to spend our time on.  

When deciding what people, events and ideas to examine in our studies, we have to choose only those which we consider to be the most important.

When we decide that a particular person, event or idea is important enough to discuss, we are deciding that they are significant. 

What is ‘historical significance’?

Historical significance is a decision that modern people make about what is important from our past. In assigning historical significance, we can choose specific events, people, locations and ideas as being particularly important to us.

Since significance is a decision that we make, it means that different people can decide that different things are significant, or that they can disagree about the reasons a particular person, event, place or idea is important.

Therefore, significance is not the same to everyone, or at all times in history. What we consider to be important can change. As a result, some events which were considered significant a century ago may not be important to us now. Alternatively, we may consider something historically significant today that no-one cared about a hundred years ago.

Watch a video explanation on the History Skills YouTube channel:

How do people decide what is significant?

In order to decide why someone or something is important in history, we need to measure them against some criteria. There are various ways that people decide that something is significant, but here are four criteria which we can use.

The four criteria follow the acronym ‘NAME’: 

N - Novelty 

A - Applicability 

M - Memory 

E - Effects 

Each of the four criteria are explained below. 

Things are often considered to be important if they do something new, which had never been seen before. The word ‘novelty’ means “the quality of being new, original, or unusual".

This is often the way that people from the past measured the significance of people and events from their own time. When an event or person was mentioned by the people alive at the time, it usually shows us that they considered them to be particularly remarkable. 

Therefore, looking for what was novel, or “new”, about a person, event, location or idea, is often a good way to decide why it is significant.

• One of the reasons that Julius Caesar was considered significant by his peers is because he was the first Roman to successfully invade and conquer the region of Gaul. 
• World War One was considered significant at the time it was happening because of the incredible number of new technological advancements that were used for the first time.

Applicability

Things from the past can suddenly be considered significant because people have realised that they are applicable to something happening in the present.

As people often say, “history repeats itself”, which means that when a major event occurs in our time, we look back into the past to see how others have dealt with similar things.

As a result, events from history that were rarely discussed before suddenly become important because they may be applicable today.  

• How the Ancient Romans incorporated foreign peoples into its empire might become significant when trying to understand modern immigration concerns. 
• The events of the Cold War conflict between the US and the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s might be considered significant as a way of understanding how to deal with modern tensions between America and Russia. 

Things often become significant because they have been remembered in a particular way over time. In history, it is common for certain people or events to become more famous with each passing year.

In these situations, we tend to focus on one particular aspect of a person or event, whether good or bad, and tend to ignore everything else about it. As a result, such things become significant primarily because of how people have talked about them years afterwards.

For example: 

The Gallipoli Campaign is considered to be a significant event in Australian history because it has been commemorated as an important event in the formation of Australia's national identity. 

Finally, things are frequently considered to be significant because a lot of people have been affected by them.

The effects caused by a person or event can either be immediate, or continue to impact more people over the days, months, years, decades, or even centuries afterwards. Typically, the more people affected, either for better or for worse, the more significant it is considered to be. 

• The Black Death is considered to be significant in European history because it killed an estimated one-third of the entire population of Europe in just four years. 
• William Wilberforce is considered to be a significant historical figure because he played a central role in abolishing the slave trade throughout the entire British empire. 

Example research questions

If you have been given a research task that is asking you to assess the significance of someone or something, you need to carefully decide which of the four criteria you'll use to build your sub-questions around.

Here are some preliminary questions which might help you in your research process :

Test your learning

No personal information is collected as part of this quiz. Only the selected responses to the questions are recorded.

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Copyright © History Skills 2014-2024.

Contact  via email

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

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

The concept of historical significance is seen as a key concept of historical reasoning. Assigning significance is based on criteria and related to the identity of who assigns significance. However, little is known about reasoning-, reading-, and writing processes when students attribute significance. The aim of this study is to investigate how students and experienced history teachers with a master’s degree reason, read, and write about historical significance while thinking aloud. We analyzed the think-aloud protocols of twelve 10th-grade students and four history teachers on reasoning, reading, and writing processes. While thinking aloud, participants read two contrasting accounts after which they wrote an argumentative text about the historical significance of Christopher Columbus. Analysis of participants’ think-aloud protocols and their written texts showed that students did not recognize historical accounts as perspectives—influenced by the historical context. In contrast, teachers looked for the authors’ judgement, evidence, and context. In addition, students’ limited use of metaknowledge regarding texts and the concept of historical significance hampered them. These out-comes provide direction for teaching reasoning, reading, and writing with respect to historical significance.

Zusammenfassung

Das Konzept der historischen Bedeutung wird als Schlüsselbegriff des historischen Denkens betrachtet. Bedeutung wird auf Grundlage von Kriterien zugewiesen und hängt zusammen mit der Identität desjenigen, der die Bedeutung zuweist. Allerdings ist wenig über Argumentations-, Lese- und Schreibprozesse bekannt, wenn Schüler Bedeutung zuschreiben. Das Ziel dieser Studie ist, zu untersuchen wie Schüler und Geschichtslehrer in der Oberstufe über historische Bedeutung argumentieren, lesen und schreiben, während sie laut denken. Wir haben die Protokolle des lauten Denkens von zwölf Schülern der 10. Klasse und vier Geschichtslehrer in der Oberstufe auf Argumentations-, Lese- und Schreibprozesse analysiert. Während sie laut dachten, lasen die Teilnehmer zwei kontrastierende Berichte. Danach verfassten sie einen argumentativen Text über die historische Bedeutung von Christoph Kolumbus. Die Analyse der Denkprotokolle der Teilnehmer und ihrer schriftlichen Texte ergab, dass die Schüler historische Berichte nicht als Perspektiven erkannten, die durch den historischen Kontext beeinflusst werden. Im Gegensatz dazu suchten die Lehrer nach dem Urteil der Autoren, den Beweisen und dem Kontext. Darüber hinaus wurden die Schüler von ihrer begrenzten Nutzung von Metawissen zu Texten und dem Konzept der historischen Bedeutung behindert. Diese Ergebnisse bieten dem Unterricht eine Richtung für das Argumentieren, Lesen und Schreiben in Bezug auf historische Bedeutung.

El concepto de significado histórico es considerado como la clave del razonamiento histórico. La asignación de significado a la historia se basa en determinados criterios y está relacionada con la identidad de quien asigna el significado. Sim embargo se sabe poco sobre los procesos de razonamiento, lectura y escritura que utilizan los estudiantes cuando atribuyen dicho significado. El objetivo de este estudio es investigar como estudiantes y profesores titulados en máster razonan, leen y escriben sobre la importancia histórica mientras piensan en voz alta. Hemos analizado los protocolos de pensamiento orales de doce estudiantes de décimo grado y cuatro profesores de historia con máster en procesos de razonamiento, lectura y escritura. Mientras pensaban en voz alta, los participantes leyeron dos relatos comparativos y después escribieron un tex-to argumentativo sobre la importancia histórica de Cristóbal Colón. El análisis de los protocolos de pensamiento orales de los participantes y sus textos escritos, reveló que los estudiantes no reconocían los relatos históricos como perspectivas – influenciados por el contexto histórico. En contraposición los profesores buscaron el juicio, la evidencia y el contexto de los autores. Además, el uso limitado de los metaconocimientos por parte de los estudiantes con respecto a los textos y el concepto de significado histórico, les obstaculizó. Los resultados de esta investigación proporcionan una guía para la enseñanza del razona-miento, la lectura y la escritura con respecto al significado histórico.

1 Introduction

People in the past have left traces such as weapons and diaries, which can be studied by historians. Historians judge these traces on their usefulness and use them when constructing a substantiated interpretation of the past. Secondary sources or historical accounts contain historians’ interpretations and may be evaluated critically by other historians (e. g., Chapman , 2011; Megill , 2007; Seixas , 2016). Although procedural knowledge of reading historical accounts is important to understand history, our knowledge of how students read historical accounts is limited ( Cercadillo et al., 2017; Innes , 2020).

R easoning about historical significance is a key aspect of history ( Lévèsque , 2008; Seixas & Morton , 2012). Significance is assigned from a perspective and, due to different historical circumstances, can change over time ( Lévèsque , 2008; Seixas & Morton , 2012). For example, Columbus could be considered as significant because he contributed to the “discovery” and conquest of America or (seen more critically) because his journey opened an era of genocide of the native Americans. Historical significance is defined as everything that is considered important according to historians when they evaluate the past from a certain perspective.

The concept of historical significance is also important for history education. Hunt (2000) argued that reflecting on historical significance makes history meaningful to students. Focusing on historical significance gives teachers the opportunity to clarify long-term developments, which may contribute to a better understanding of present society ( Hunt , 2000). Despite the widespread importance assigned to historical significance, little is known about how students reason when attributing significance.

The interface between language and subjects such as history has been widely acknowledged, but is still ill-defined ( Lorenzo & Trujillo , 2017). When investigating the significance of an historical person, reasoning processes, reading processes, and writing processes are highly intertwined. For example, in order to argue for the significance of a person, a researcher must read accounts in which historians assign significance to that particular person. When individuals read and write, they employ explicit reasoning in order to comprehend and to create a text. Because students might encounter problems with these activities, it is relevant to study their learning processes while they reason, read, and write.

We aimed to investigate students’ reasoning, reading, and writing processes as they assigned historical significance to Christopher Columbus and to evaluate how the assignment of significance is influenced by historians’ perspectives. With this knowledge as well as knowledge regarding students’ struggles, researchers can develop interventions regarding reading historical accounts. For this reason, we compared the approaches of 12 tenth-grade students and four history teachers.

2 Theoretical Framework

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.

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.

4.1.1 Reasoning processes

Differences in reasoning processes are presented in Table 1 . Students were less active with respect to background author/author’s viewpoint (1.05 % and 0.05 %, respectively), their own subjectivity (0.15 %), and historical context (0.93 %) compared to teachers (background author: 3.59 %, author’s viewpoint: 0.98 %, own subjectivity: 0.71 %, historical context: 1.90 %). We found relatively fewer utterances in which students (1.67 %) or teachers (0.89 %) implicitly or explicitly stated criteria for significance. Overall, however, teachers’ protocols showed more reasoning activities than students.

The variation in reasoning processes can be illustrated using the protocols from student Jayden and teacher Jill. Jayden was the only student who seriously reflected on the historical context and on the background of the author. He seemed aware that it was important to focus on the background of the author in order to comprehend the text—as evidenced by his rereading of Irving’s account: “That is about history. It is not important.” It appears that Jayden reflected on the historical context when he said, “Nineteenth century...Slavery is not acceptable in that time.” However, Jayden did not relate Irving’s scientific statements to his historical context during reasoning or writing.

Illustrative for teachers’ method of reasoning is Jill’s comment: “I am determining his position. How he, as an historian, is affected by his time.” Jill tried to understand the authors’ point of view by reconstructing their backgrounds through contextualization. She considered the historical context when she commented, “It is the era of slavery. Therefore, he [Irving] is a witness of the consequences.” Contrary to students, she seemed aware of the importance of her own subjectivity when she said, “This is about peoples’ suffering. That is important for me; that is why I am critical.”

4.1.2 Reading processes

The protocols of both students and teachers, as shown in Table 1 , may have featured comparable percentages of activities as reading, summarizing, and monitoring, but we found differences with respect to the activities rereading (students: 11.37 %, teachers: 2.04 %) and evaluating texts (students: 0.62 %, teachers: 2.49 %).

Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations for Activities in the Think-Aloud Protocols for Students and Experts

The differences in the reading processes can be illustrated by the protocols of student Emmely and teacher Patrick. Emmely started by reading all materials. She read without comment, breaks, or rereading and seemed to comprehend the aim of the task as well as both texts and background information. When she was finished, she read the task again and started writing. During the writing process, she constantly reread substantial parts of the text to extract information for her own text.

When Patrick read Irving’s account, he expressed doubts about both accounts and commented on the text. Illustrative were his comments on a passage about supposed resistance from the Catholic Church against the voyage of Columbus. He commented, “I thought, the church has already accepted that point of view.” In contrast with Emmely, Patrick barely reread while writing parts of the accounts or the assignment; he did go back for some details such as Irving’s first name.

Patrick’s comments exposed an idea of historical accounts as being perspectives on the past. The following segment is typical for Patrick’s way of reading:

He [Irving] is positive about Columbus. The European people were very important for the USA. Thanks to Columbus. However, .... uhm.... He is troubling with slavery. Irving states that he does not want to use the idea that slavery was common in Columbus’ time to justify Columbus’ mistakes. [...] He disliked slavery....It is before the civil war...the tensions between both parties could be noticeable....That is his point of view.

This strategy enabled Patrick to gain deep understanding of both authors’ points of view and seemed to make rereading unnecessary. Emmely’s protocol did not contain utterances pertaining to the authors’ perspectives.

4.1.3 Writing processes

With regard to writing processes, Table 1 shows comparable percentages for students and teachers. Teachers’ protocols contained more segments about planning (2.98 %) and monitoring writing (12.03 %), compared to students (planning: 0.79 %, monitoring writing 4.66 %), but fewer segments about how to formulate written texts (students: 10.07 %, teachers: 8.80 %). Teachers and students showed comparable activities on formulating text, writing, revising, and evaluating written text.

The distinctions in writing processes between teachers and students may be illustrated with the protocols from student Lynn and teacher Nick. Lynn was one of the four students who thought about planning, “I have to present my arguments and counterarguments.” Given the rest of the protocol, this was an isolated remark. She focused her activities concerning monitoring writing on individual sentences within her text: “this sentence needs improvement.” Her revising activities also related to the formulation of sentences. After writing a sentence, she asked, “How do you actually say that?” and subsequently revised the sentence. In contrast to students, teachers developed a structure for their text. Thinking about the structure of his text, Nick said:

First of all, I have to think about the structure of my text. First an introduction with my point of view. uhm...uhm... it is an argumentative text. You are convincing people of something. So, in my introduction I should give my point of view. I have to finish with a conclusion and a recommendation about Columbus Day. In the middle part, I will write my arguments.

Contrary to Lynn, Nick’s approach enabled him to select historical facts and to offer support by selecting usable fragments from both texts: “This is my introduction. Then first...uhm...outlining...uhm...the development in the thinking about Columbus.” Nick’s comments about revising focused on the improvement of the quality of his arguments; for example, Nick would delete a sentence in order to strengthen an argument.

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.

Mean Scores (Scale 1–4) on Text Structure, Writing, and Domain-Specific Reasoning

5 Conclusion and Discussion

This study focused on historical significance, an important aspect of historical reasoning, and aimed to gain insight into 12 students’ reasoning, reading, and writing processes. Four history teachers with a master’s degree were added to this study in order to grasp students’ weaknesses. Our data revealed several differences between students and teachers. Judging by their think-aloud protocols, students were more active while working on the main categories Task and Reading. Teachers focused more on Reasoning About Significance and Writing. Students and teachers differed on a wide range of subcategories: Rereading Texts, Evaluating Texts, Background Author, Author’s Viewpoint, Historical Context, their Own Subjectivity, Planning Writing, and Monitoring Writing. Overall, the outcomes of the think-aloud protocols matched the outcomes of the written texts. Teachers scored higher on all categories—especially on domain-specific reasoning and general writing quality.

These results suggest that students seemed unaware of the existence of “contextualized perspectives”; students saw Columbus’ journey as either “positive” or “negative.” Although students recognized the different impact Columbus’ journey to America had on the inhabitants of Spain and the native Americans, most students did not relate this to the perspectives of Irving or Zinn or to the different historical contexts in which both historians lived. This could be explained by Dutch teaching practices. Teachers consider teaching the ongoing interpretation of the past as too difficult for senior high school students ( Wansink et al., 2018). It seems that students considered historical accounts as records of the past. This finding links to students constantly rereading parts of the texts, while writing, in order to extract facts and ignoring the authors’ background, and context. Our findings align with those of Wolfe and Goldman (2005) and suggest that participating students’ (10th grade) understanding of the past did not progress (much) compared to the sixth-grade students participating Wolfe and Goldman’s study. In contrast, teachers regarded historians as interpreters of the past; they knew how authors’ accounts were influenced by their historical circumstances, and some teachers made comments about their own historical subjectivity. Consequently, teachers attempted to reconstruct historians’ perspectives by tracing the main idea, ascertaining how this idea was constructed, and in which context the text was written. Our finding supports findings from earlier research (e. g., Wineburg , 1991).

In addition, students did not expose the use of metaknowledge regarding historical accounts and the concept of historical significance. Students ignored criteria for significance while writing. Being more aware of the existence of criteria for significance might help students to construct a richer picture of the past. Therefore, several researchers stressed the importance of criteria for assigning significance ( Cercadillo , 2001; Lévèsque , 2008) and previous research has found that students seem capable of doing so ( van Drie et al., 2013). Second, students used counterarguments and rebuttals in their written text; however, these counterarguments and rebuttals were poorly written. Participating teachers possessed more metaknowledge regarding texts and used that knowledge to write (more) audience-orientated texts by planning their texts, describing clear perspectives, and revising their texts. This mirrors earlier research on literacy ( Kellogg , 2008).

The results of the current study may provide teachers direction on teaching writing about historical significance. First, instructional practices should focus on metaknowledge about historical accounts and knowledge of text genres. This might help to recognize accounts as “contextualized perspectives” and provide support to students as they read and write. In addition, student need to learn how to apply knowledge of historical significance, which might help them to construct a richer picture of the past. This means that teachers should encourage students to think consciously about questions regarding the authors’ main ideas, the construction of these ideas, and how the main idea is influenced by the historical context.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a small-scale study. All participants were selected from one school and one teacher taught all students, which may have influenced the outcomes of this study. Students who were familiar with other teaching styles may have used other activities and processes. In addition, our task was very complex. Students had to consider not only Columbus’ time, the nineteenth and twentieth century, but also the time in which they live. The multi-layered nature of the task and the demands that writing makes on the available capacity of students’ memory ( Kellogg , 2008) may have been overwhelming. Finally, the aim of this study was to investigate reading, reasoning, and writing processes, but we may have lost sight on some of the details of these processes.

Future researchers should seek more evidence for these conclusions by conducting think-aloud studies with other age groups, other levels of education, or in other cultural settings. Perhaps future researchers could develop tasks that ask more explicitly for the use of criteria for significance. Future researchers should develop and investigate instructional practices which focus on supporting students’ reading, reasoning, and writing. In addition, we recommend that future researchers make a more in-depth analysis of reading, reasoning, and writing processes.

Barton, K. C. (2005). “Best not to forget them”: Secondary students’ judgments of historical significance in Northern Ireland, Theory & Research in Social Education , 33 (1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2005.10473270 . 10.1080/00933104.2005.10473270 Search in Google Scholar

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts, Metacognition Learning 6, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7 . 10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7 Search in Google Scholar

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa . 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Search in Google Scholar

Carretero, M., & Kriger, M. (2011). Historical representations and conflicts about indigenous people as national identities. Culture and Psychology, 17 (2), 177–195. 10.1177/1354067X11398311 Search in Google Scholar

Cercadillo, L. (2001). Significance in history: Students’ ideas in England and Spain. In A. Dickinson, P. Gordon, & P. Lee (Eds.) Raising Standards in History. London, England: Education Woburn Press. Search in Google Scholar

Cercadillo L., Chapman A., & Lee P. (2017). Organizing the past: Historical accounts, significance and unknown ontologies. In Carretero M., Berger S., & Grever M. (Eds.) Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 529–552). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978-1-137-52908-4_28 Search in Google Scholar

Chapman, A. (2011). “Historical Interpretations”. In Davies (Ed.) Debates in history teaching (pp. 96–108). Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: An introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education , 12 (2), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.26522/BROCKED.V12I2.38 . 10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 Search in Google Scholar

Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse. The language of time, cause and evaluation. London, England: Continuum. Search in Google Scholar

Counssel, C. (2004). Looking through a Josephine-Butler shaped window: Focusing pupils’ thinking on historical significance, Teaching History , 114, 30–36. Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication , 29, 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260 . 10.1177/0741088312451260 Search in Google Scholar

Hunt, M. (2000). Teaching historical significance. In J. Arthur & R. Phillips (Eds.), Issues in history teaching. London, England: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Innes, M. (2020). Dynamic literacies and democracy: A framework for historical literacy. In C. W. Berg & T. M. Christou (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of history and social studies education (pp. 597–620) . Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978-3-030-37210-1_23 Search in Google Scholar

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research , 1(1), 1–26. 10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1 Search in Google Scholar

Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading , 34, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9817.2010.01436.x . 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01436.x Search in Google Scholar

Kincaid J. P., Fishburne R. P. Jr, Rogers R. L., & Chissom B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75, Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN . https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=istlibrary . 10.21236/ADA006655 Search in Google Scholar

Leon, J. A., & Carretero, M. (1995). Intervention in comprehension and memory strategies: Knowledge and use of text structure. Learning and Instruction , 5 , 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00011-Q 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00011-Q Search in Google Scholar

Lévèsque, S. (2008). Thinking historically. Educating students for the twenty-first century. Toronto, Canada: Toronto University Press. Search in Google Scholar

List, A., & Du, H. (2021). Reasoning beyond history: Examining students’ strategy use when completing a multiple text task addressing a controversial topic in education. Reading and Writing , 34 (4), 1003–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10095-5 10.1007/s11145-020-10095-5 Search in Google Scholar

Lorenzo, F., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Historical literacy in CLIL: Telling the past in a second language. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.55–72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Search in Google Scholar

Lorenzo, F. & F. Trujillo (2017). Languages of Schooling in European Policymaking: Present State and Future Outcomes. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(2), 177–197. 10.1515/eujal-2017-0007 Search in Google Scholar

Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research , 7(2), 275–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03 Search in Google Scholar

Mateos, M., Cuevas, E. M. I., Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction , 36, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300 10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300 Search in Google Scholar

Megill, A. (2007). Historical Knowledge, Historical Error: A Contemporary Guide to Practice . Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 19(4), 539–568. 10.1080/10508406.2010.481014 Search in Google Scholar

Peck, C. L. (2010). “It’s not like [I’m] Chinese and Canadian. I am in between”: Ethnicity and students’ conceptions of historical significance. Theory & Research in Social Education , 38(4), 574–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473440 10.1080/00933104.2010.10473440 Search in Google Scholar

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum). 10.2307/358808 Search in Google Scholar

Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools, Cognition and Instruction , 30(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.634081 10.1080/07370008.2011.634081 Search in Google Scholar

Schellings, C., Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third-grader’s think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16, 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.004 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.004 Search in Google Scholar

Schleppegrell, M., & Oliveira de, L. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (1), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.003 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.003 Search in Google Scholar

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How Reading Apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Search in Google Scholar

Seixas, P. (1994). Students’ understanding of historical significance. Theory & Research in Social Education , 22, 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1994.10505726 10.1080/00933104.1994.10505726 Search in Google Scholar

Seixas, P. (1997). Mapping the terrain of historical significance. Social Education , 61(1), 22–27. Search in Google Scholar

Seixas, P. (2016). Translation and its discontents: Key concepts in English and German history education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48 (4), 427–439, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1101618 10.1080/00220272.2015.1101618 Search in Google Scholar

Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2012). The big six: Historical thinking concepts (Toronto, Canada: Nelson). Search in Google Scholar

van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications, in S. Metzger & L. Harris (Eds). International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell). Search in Google Scholar

van Drie, J. P., Janssen, T., Groenendijk, T. (2018). Improving writing in social studies through professional development: Effects on teachers’ beliefs, classroom practice and students’ writing. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0009 . 10.1515/eujal-2017-0009 Search in Google Scholar

van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., & van der Linden, J. L. (2006). Historical reasoning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 265–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Search in Google Scholar

van Drie, J. P., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Stam, B. (2013). Discussing historical significance in the classroom: ‘But why is this so important’. International Journal of historical learning, teaching and research, 12(2), 146–168. Search in Google Scholar

van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method. A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes (London, England: Academic Press London). Search in Google Scholar

Wansink, B., Akkerman, S., Zuiker, I., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Where does teaching multiperspectivity in history education begin and end? An analysis of the uses of temporality. Theory and Research in Social Education , 46(4), 1–33. doi:10.1080/00933104.2018.1480439 10.1080/00933104.2018.1480439 Search in Google Scholar

Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 , 73–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.83.1.73 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73 Search in Google Scholar

Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science , 22, 319–346. 10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3 Search in Google Scholar

Wineburg, S. (2013). Undue uncertainty: Where Howards Zinn’s A People’s History falls short. American Educator , 36(4), 27–34. Search in Google Scholar

Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction , 23(4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2 10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2 Search in Google Scholar

Yeager, E. A., Foster, S. J., & Greer, J. (2002). How eighth graders in England and the United States view historical significance. Elementary School Journal, 103(2), 199–219. 10.1086/499723 Search in Google Scholar

Columbus Day is celebrated on the second Monday in October in the United States. This day has been officially a national holiday since 1937. However, not all States celebrate this day. Some States find this day an insult to the descendants of the original inhabitants of the United States. The state of South Dakota celebrates this day but calls it “Native American Day.”

The US government wonders whether Columbus Day should be celebrated as a national holiday. A historical committee has been set up to investigate this issue. The committee receives these questions:

How has the assigned significance to Columbus developed over time?

Should Columbus Day be celebrated as a national day or not?

In order to make a decision about Columbus Day, you as a historian are asked to answer these questions.

Write a text to the committee in which you indicate to what extent Columbus is historically important. Also pay attention to how thinking about Columbus has developed over time. Then give a reasoned opinion on whether Columbus Day should be celebrated as a national holiday or not.

Use the texts in which two historians assign significance to Columbus (Text 1 and 2) and a text with background information (Background to the texts). Finally, you will find a brief biography about Columbus.

You can also use the information from the lessons. Write an argumentative text in which you answer the above questions. There is no prescribed length of the text. Attempt to write a text of at least 250 words. For this assignment you have one lesson.

Coding scheme: Think-aloud protocols

Coding scheme: written texts.

Text Structure

General Writing Quality

Reasoning About Significance

© 2022 Johan van Driel, Jannet van Drie and Carla van Boxtel, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

The UK National Charity for History

Password Sign In

Become a Member | Register for free

The Personal Study Dealing With Significance

Student Guides

• Add to My HA Add to folder Default Folder [New Folder] Add

History courses at A-Level contain a personal study that ranges from 2,500- 4,000 words in length, depending upon the exam board. Many of these deal with the theme of significance.

Here are some tips for your personal study as recommended by the National Archives:

• Choose a valid historical issue that interests you and that is not too narrow or too general
• The wording of your investigation question is absolutely central to a successful study. The exam board AQA stresses that it should always be in the form of a question like 'how far' or 'to what extent?' This approach will allow you to show the examiner your ability to evaluate, analyse and conclude. It will also help you to focus on concepts rather than narrative description
• Make sure there is enough primary and secondary material to allow you to study in depth - textbooks, biographies, diaries, documentaries, films, historical sites, letters, maps, paintings, novels, newspapers and museum displays
• Show you can select, interpret and evaluate sources (primary and secondary)
• Present a consistently analytical response to the question posed by the study
• Offer interpretations of events and reveal the context in which ideas are produced
• Show awareness of the main debates of the issues involved
• If you have chosen to write about a figure in history, always consider their social and political context and assess your person's historical significance
• Organise your material to produce a well-structured piece of work
• Focus on communicating ideas well to present a cohesive argument
• Draw your own conclusions supported by evidence
• Produce a study with a bibliography listing all sources, books and articles you used. Add appendices and footnotes where appropriate
• Study previous examples of good practice if your teacher has them
• Seek the advice of your teacher, within reason. The object of the exercise is to show that you can work independently

Significance

As part of an enquiry based personal study, you may be asked to examine the significance of a person, period or event in history. This is not always as easy as it sounds because you have to ask yourself, significant compared to what? In whose opinion? How is it measured? The fact is that a personal study is PERSONAL. This means it should be about your response to the question. How does it make you feel? What story does it tell you? What do you conclude from looking at the evidence and opinions of historians? The study should be about your opinions and feelings. You can refer to other people's interpretations, but you should use this as an opportunity to show off your own arguments. Remember, significance is a constructed theme. It is ascribed to events and people by others, or sometimes by themselves through propaganda. Ideas about significance can change from person to person, over time and with different evidence.

Getting a personal study right when dealing with significance is not as easy as it sounds. In order to weigh up how significant something was, perhaps it may be useful to go back to basics. The 5 Rs are a good set of questions to use as a starting point in order to determine significance; however, they should not be used as a tick-box exercise or an essay plan! Your study will need to be much more fluid than that and delve into the context of the time and the wider context, as well as other issues particular to the question that may affect the significance of the person or event. However, the 5 Rs might help you to decide upon which questions or topics lend themselves well to the theme of significance.

What to look for

• Importance - to the people living at the time
• Profundity - how deeply were people's lives affected?
• Quantity - how many lives were affected?
• Durability - for how long were people's lives affected?
• Relevance - the extent to which the event has contributed to an increased understanding of present life?

Example: World War I:

• Who was affected by the war?
• How were people's lives changed during it?
• How many died or lost key relatives?
• Why is it important to remember? (lives lost)
• Why is it important to study?
• Resulting in Change

What do I have to do?

You must produce a piece of work no longer than 3000 words in length. The question must focus on significance and must allow you to demonstrate the following understandings:

• Historical significance can be measured by using appropriate criteria.
• Historical significance can be measured across time or over time.
• Other people's claims about historical significance are provisional and negotiable.

Your question must also allow you to demonstrate the following skills:

• Propose a title question that defines the study;
• Explain and analyse the significance of an individual, event, idea or site;
• Use criteria to organise an answer and to determine significance;
• Measure significance either across time, or over time, or by reference to both dimensions - by comparing and combining them;
• Explain, analyse, and reach and support judgements about, significance that may include explanations of ideas, actions or events, critical use or primary and/or secondary source material as evidence and /or critical evaluation of historians' interpretations.

Historical significance (and what it is not)

It is important that you have understanding of how 'significance' is being used. It might help by thinking of 'historical significance' rather than just significance. 'Historical significance' involves a broad judgement about an individual, event, idea or site. Traditional causation questions e.g. 'Was Charles' leadership the most important reason he lost the Civil War?' should be avoided. This type of question usually ends up with the candidate explaining the role of Charles, then writing about the role of other factors, and then comparing their importance and reaching a conclusion. Such a question, and its answer, will fail to take you beyond the explanation work they were doing at AS level.  It does not address historical significance. By asking a question about the causation of a particular event the scope is limited by placing the focus on a particular outcome e.g. losing the Civil War. Questions are more likely to provide you with an opportunity to judge historical significance if the question is not limited to a particular outcome. A question such as 'How significant was Charles I's defeat in the Civil War?' is much broader and allows you to consider the importance of the defeat at the time and immediately afterwards, but also whether it has any longer term importance.

Significance questions need a clear context and a timeframe - how big a period of time does an event need to be placed in?  The Tudor Rebellions look quite big in the context of the 16th century but if you put it in the timeframe 1400-1700, the rebellions are book-ended by the Wars of the Roses and the Civil War which puts a different perspective on the significance of the rebellions - therefore it is clear from this example, that when examining the significance of any event, the timeframe needs to be very clear.

Correcting some misconceptions about significance:

• Significance is not the same as relevance to today, although this may be part of it.
• Significance is much more than just importance.
• It is more than just causes or consequences. Some individuals or events are significant because of their consequences. Others may not have had major consequences but they can still be significant.
• Significance is a value given to individuals, events, ideas and sites. It is not a quality intrinsic to the individual, event, idea or site. It is provisional and negotiable. Historians and others will come to different judgements about it.
• Significance should not be confused with fame or rank.
• It is not necessarily to do with size e.g. large sites are not significant simply because of their size.
• Significance can be negative or positive BUT: interpretations of significance should not be affected by moral judgement e.g. Cromwell is not significant because he put the inhabitants of Drogheda to the sword, Hitler cannot be significant because of the Holocaust. These claims confuse significance with greatness or being infamous.   

How to measure significance

Claims made about significance need to be based on more than assertion. You should be encouraged to demonstrate the significance of individuals, events, ideas or sites. This involves:

Recognising that significance can be considered in at least two dimensions - across time (impact at the time) and over time (impact on the longer-term course of events);

Using criteria against which to measure significance in each dimension - extent of immediate impact (across time) and relationship to prior and subsequent events (over time) i.e. did any other events or people bear a relationship? Did anything happen as a consequence?

Criteria for measuring significance might be :

• Nature of the individual, event, idea or site
• How typical/how unique?
• How expected/how unexpected?
• How reported/how received?
• How iconic or symbolic?
• Width of impact (could be materially, or ideas, action...)
• How many people, groups or institutions were affected?
• Were rich/poor, men/women, old/young affected in the same way?
• Were different parts of the country affected in the same way?
• How wide, geographically, was the impact?
• Depth of impact (could be materially, or ideas, actions...)
• How deeply were people's beliefs and attitudes affected?
• For how long were people affected?
• How important was it to people at the time?
• How far it was it remarked on by people at the time?
• How powerful was the impact?
• What kind of reaction was caused?
• Nature of the impact
• How far was it beneficial?
• Relevance for historians
• The extent to which the impact increases historians' understanding of the period
• What does it reveal about the period?
• Why have different judgements about its significance been made by different ages, and/or historians? What criteria or values influenced their judgements? 

Criteria for measuring significance over time :

• How much of a change occurred between what went before and what came after (event etc. seen as a turning point)?
• How much continuity occurred between what went before and what came after (event etc. seen as part of a trend)?
• How is the amount of change/continuity affected by variations to the time scale (event etc. seen as a ‘false dawn')? 

Other criteria:

• It has been remembered at some stage in history within the collective memory of a group or groups;
• It has had a resonance. People make analogies with it; it is possible to connect it with experiences, beliefs or situations across time and space.
• Try a visual graph to help you plan your answer or plot a timeline or flow diagram of all of the things that came out of the person/event/discovery/period like the one attached below.

Questions to ask yourself:

• Do both judgements (across time and over time) agree about the significance I can attach to the individual, event, idea or site?
• If so, how do I combine these similarities within a single account?
• Do the judgements (across time and over time) disagree about the significance I can attach to the individual, event, idea or site? In which case, how do I account for this?
• Do the results of the person/event/circumstances resonate across a long period of time? If not, does this affect significance?

This resource is FREE for Student HA Members .

HA Members can sign in to access this content or you can Join the HA if you are not already a member.

Teaching Students About Historical Significance

What makes something or someone in history significant?

In my middle school history classes, understanding this question is at the heart of our learning. Asking it of my students inevitably leads to fascinating discussions about perspectives, bias and representation—exactly the conversations I want them to be having. We return to the question throughout the year to remind ourselves that what matters from the past is always up for debate. Indeed, many students’ struggles to develop their historical thinking skills can be traced back to the pernicious belief that history is a fixed , objective set of facts rather than a collection of historians’ interpretations and analyses . The challenge for history teachers is how to push students’ thinking past this static concept of the past in ways that are developmentally appropriate and explicit.

Cause and Effect

Students quickly arrive at the idea that something or someone is significant if it/they “did something important.” In this line of thinking, George Washington is significant for leading the country through the Revolutionary War, or the Battle of Gettysburg is significant as a turning point in the Civil War. The impact is clear, and students can capably reduce these well-known aspects of the past into simple “domino effect” relationships by the time they reach middle school.

To begin complicating their sense of causation, I introduce them to this chart that lists 28 different phrases for expressing cause-and-effect relationships. (For an elementary class, this chart could easily be reduced to fewer terms.) Now, the discussion gets down in the weeds and forces students to evaluate their criteria for significance. Different events and people come into focus. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation may have “set the stage for” a federal ban on slavery, but the work of activists within the abolitionist movement “highlighted” the injustice of slavery, “demonstrated” the breadth of support for abolitionism and “helped bring about” the end of slavery.

Although students intuitively understand that historical events and figures make varying contributions to history and have different impacts, it can be difficult for them to demonstrate a mature grasp of those relationships. This is due, I think, to a lack of sufficient language for expressing causes and effects. Asking students to choose from a list of 28 (and it could easily be more) phrases makes the diversity of available relationships explicit; it also allows them to see that historians are making choices about what matters by virtue of the actual words they use.

Working with this document has allowed my students to see and articulate different ways of thinking about historical significance. For example, the Industrial Revolution can stand on its own for “paving the way” to the United States’ industrial power, but it can also “reveal” harsh working conditions, “give rise to” the mistreatment of immigrants and “catalyze” the women’s rights movement. The event’s significance obviously changes if we look at it through different lenses or if we use different language to describe it. New kinds of questions emerge. What kinds of responses do we get if we ask students what the Industrial Revolution “gave rise to” versus what it “created the conditions for”? Building conversation and designing assessment around the chart pushes students to debate about how to write history and how to explain the complex and competing narratives of the past.

Bias Detection

Once students have started to embrace the idea that nothing in the past is fixed, they are ready for discussions of bias and injustice. Thinking through a variety of ways to express cause and effect quickly brings up conversations about bias because students begin to see that different historical language means emphasizing different factors and stories. In my classroom, I spend so much time talking about bias with my students that they’ve joked that I have a “bias toward bias.” I also emphasize considering alternative viewpoints, multiple perspectives and divergent narratives, while learning to be aware of bias.

An anti-bias approach in the history classroom—meaning that students are trained to be aware of stereotypes, to interrogate overly reductive history, and to study the contributions and actions of marginalized groups—is likely appealing to most teachers. The challenge is that students need concrete strategies for articulating their critical thinking around bias. Armed with a varied set of cause-and-effect vocabulary, students can investigate, interrogate and push back against accounts of history that seek to perpetuate a certain viewpoint or set of ideas. They can broaden the conversation about the past to include the contributions of others and investigate competing narratives. Learning to use a variety of ways to express cause-and-effect relationships fosters the development of bias detection and awareness .

It all comes back to vocabulary.

Gold is a seventh- and eighth-grade history teacher at Moses Brown School in Providence, Rhode Island. You can reach him on Twitter @jonathansgold .

• Student sensitivity.
• The Power of Advertising and Girls' Self-Image

Print this Article

Would you like to print the images in this article?

• Google Classroom

Sign in to save these resources.

Login or create an account to save resources to your bookmark collection.

Learning for Justice in the South

When it comes to investing in racial justice in education, we believe that the South is the best place to start. If you’re an educator, parent or caregiver, or community member living and working in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana or Mississippi, we’ll mail you a free introductory package of our resources when you join our community and subscribe to our magazine.

Get the Learning for Justice Newsletter

Historical significance

Historiographical concept / from wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, dear wikiwand ai, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:.

Can you list the top facts and stats about Historical significance?

Summarize this article for a 10 year old

Historical significance is a historiographical key concept that explores and seeks to explain the selection of particular social and cultural past events for remembrance by human societies. This element of selection involved in both ascribing and analyzing historical significance is one factor in making the discipline of history distinct from the past. [1] Historians consider knowledge of dates and events within and between specific historical periods the primary content of history, also known as "first-order knowledge" or substantive concepts. In contrast, historical significance is an example of a subject specific secondary key concept or "second-order knowledge" also known as a meta-concept, [2] or disciplinary concept, [3] which is typically used to help organize knowledge within a subject area, frame suitable areas of inquiry, provide the framework upon which substantive knowledge can be built, and map learner progression within a subject discipline. [4] Specifically with regards to historical significance, the way dates and events are chosen and ascribed relative significance is not fixed and can change over time according to which criteria were used to form the judgement of significance as well as how those criteria were chosen themselves in the first place. This aspect to significance has been described as:

“a flexible relationship between us and the past” . [5]

Historical significance is often regarded as involving judging why a particular person or event is remembered and why another is not, it is this aspect of reasoned and evaluative judgement about historical significance that makes history writing differ from being simply a record of past events. [6]

"as soon as we turn to questions of significance—of why something happened versus the mere fact of its happening—history becomes an act of judgment." [7]

This emphasis on exploring what has been deemed significant by certain societies in contrast to what has been left out of the historical record has led to historical significance often being paired with the concept of historical silence , which looks at why and how certain social class, racial, and/or ethnic groups have not featured in the historical record or whose contributions have not been seen as significant at particular times, and in particular contexts. [8] [9] [10] [11] Thus historical significance is not an intrinsic or fixed property of a particular historical event but rather more of an assessment of who, why, and how that event was judged significant enough to be remembered. [12] With this potential fluidity in mind, it therefore follows that any assessment of historical significance should not be seen as fixed or permanent. [13]

"historical significance is not an enduring or unchanging characteristic of any particular event. It is a contingent quality that depends on the perspective from which that event is subsequently viewed." [13]

Search The Canadian Encyclopedia

Enter your search term

Why sign up?

Signing up enhances your TCE experience with the ability to save items to your personal reading list, and access the interactive map.

• MLA 8TH EDITION
• Clarke, Samantha. "Historical Thinking Concepts". The Canadian Encyclopedia , 23 July 2020, Historica Canada . www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/historical-thinking-concepts. Accessed 25 April 2024.
• The Canadian Encyclopedia , 23 July 2020, Historica Canada . www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/historical-thinking-concepts. Accessed 25 April 2024." href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy
• APA 6TH EDITION
• Clarke, S. (2020). Historical Thinking Concepts. In The Canadian Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/historical-thinking-concepts
• The Canadian Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/historical-thinking-concepts" href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy
• CHICAGO 17TH EDITION
• Clarke, Samantha. "Historical Thinking Concepts." The Canadian Encyclopedia . Historica Canada. Article published July 23, 2020; Last Edited July 23, 2020.
• The Canadian Encyclopedia . Historica Canada. Article published July 23, 2020; Last Edited July 23, 2020." href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy
• TURABIAN 8TH EDITION
• The Canadian Encyclopedia , s.v. "Historical Thinking Concepts," by Samantha Clarke, Accessed April 25, 2024, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/historical-thinking-concepts
• The Canadian Encyclopedia , s.v. "Historical Thinking Concepts," by Samantha Clarke, Accessed April 25, 2024, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/historical-thinking-concepts" href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy

Thank you for your submission

Our team will be reviewing your submission and get back to you with any further questions.

Thanks for contributing to The Canadian Encyclopedia.

Historical Thinking Concepts

Article by Samantha Clarke

Published Online July 23, 2020

Last Edited July 23, 2020

The six “Historical Thinking Concepts” were developed by The Historical Thinking Project, which was led by Dr. Peter Seixas of the University of British Columbia and educational expert Jill Colyer. The project identified six key concepts: historical significance, primary source evidence, continuity and change, cause and consequence, historical perspectives and ethical dimensions. Together, these concepts form the basis of historical inquiry. The project was funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage and The History Education Network (THEN/HiER). Seixas and Tom Morton published a book, The Big Six: Historical Thinking Concepts, that expanded on these concepts.

Use Primary Source Evidence

Historians use evidence from sources to support their statements and conclusions. This is a key part of crafting believable and trustworthy narratives (or accounts). Does the author provide references to primary sources? Can I find primary source evidence to fact-check their claims? How does the availability of primary sources shape what we remember and what we decide is historically significant? ( See Historical Sources .)

Identify Continuity and Change

We are drawn to change as a marker of historical significance. This is particularly true for major upheavals like war and revolutions. Yet, this historical thinking concept asks us to consider continuity as well. The absence of upheaval and maintenance of continuity can also be historically significant. For example, what does it mean that the Canadian rail system has gone largely unchanged for decades while other nations transitioned to electric trains?

Analyze Cause and Consequence

When discussing a historical event, you should understand the causes of the event. Why did it happen? When considering this question, it is important to be able to explain why a certain event occurred in the way that it did. Why did the First World War begin in 1914, not 1912 or 1917? Then we can assess the lasting consequences of an event. ( See also First World War Education Guide .)

External Links

The Historical Thinking Project

Recommended

Historiography, historiography in french, historiography in english, historical sources.

How to Find a Reliable Online Source

Perspectives, connections, reflections: canada and the world wars educ..., think like a historian: introduction to vimy, think like a historian: vimy in pictures, think like a historian: vimy in letters, critical thinking, think like a historian: the halifax explosion, think like a historian: vimy in newspapers, think like a historian: the last hundred days, inquiry guide: war of 1812, a guide to primary sources using the memory project, residential schools in canada education guide, residential schools in canada: history and legacy education guide, indigenous perspectives education guide.

What this handout is about

This handout was written with several goals in mind: to explain what historians do and how they approach the writing process, to encourage you to think about your history instructor’s expectations, and to offer some strategies to help you write effectively in history courses.

Introduction: What is history?

Easy, right? History is everything that happened in the past: dates, facts, timelines, and the names of kings, queens, generals, and villains. For many students, the word “history” conjures up images of thick textbooks, long lectures, and even longer nights spent memorizing morsels of historical knowledge.

For your instructors in the history department, however, history is a fascinating puzzle with both personal and cultural significance. The past informs our lives, ideas, and expectations. Before shrugging off this abstract notion, ask yourself another “easy” question: Why are you here at UNC-CH?

Maybe you’re at UNC because it was the best school that accepted you, or because UNC has great sports teams. In the big picture, however, you are here because of history, i.e., because of past events and developments. You are here (on the planet) because two people’s lives collided—in the past. You may be here (in North Carolina) because you or some ancestor crossed an ocean several weeks, years, decades or centuries ago. You are here (in Chapel Hill) because, two hundred years ago, some people pooled their ideas, energy, and money to dig a well, collect some books, and hire some professors. You are here (at an institution of higher education) because long ago, some German scholars laid the groundwork for what we call the “modern university.”

In other words, your presence on this campus is the result of many, many historical developments. Although we are all unique, we share parts of our identities with past peoples and cultures. The problems we face today may have puzzled—or even been created by—past people and cultures. This same past has eliminated many hurdles for us (think of the polio vaccine) and may even offer possible solutions for contemporary concerns (consider the recent revival of herbal medicines).

Finally, history is ever-changing. Question: what did Christopher Columbus do? Well, if you’re like many people, you’re thinking, “He discovered the New World.” Well, sort of. It took a while before the Spaniards realized he’d landed on an island off the coast of this New World. It took even longer for historians to figure out that the Vikings crossed the Atlantic long before Columbus. And now we know that this world wasn’t really “new”—there were civilizations here that far predated organized cultures in Europe.

So, historians study the past to figure out what happened and how specific events and cultural developments affected individuals and societies. Historians also revise earlier explanations of the past, adding new information. The more we know about the past, the better we can understand how societies have evolved to their present state, why people face certain problems, and how successfully others have addressed those problems.

As you can see, the questions of history include the immediate and personal (how did I get here?), the broad and cultural (why do universities function as they do?) and the purely factual (what exactly did Columbus find?). The answers historians offer are all more or less educated guesses about the past, based on interpretations of whatever information trickles down through the ages.

History instructors’ expectations of you

You can assume two things about your Carolina history instructors. First, they are themselves scholars of history. Second, they expect you to engage in the practice of history. In other words, they frequently want you to use information to make an educated guess about some bygone event, era, or phenomenon.

You probably know how to guess about the past. High school history exams and various nameless standardized tests often encourage students to guess. For example:

1. The hula hoop was invented in

d) none of the above

In academia, however, guessing is not enough. As they evaluate assignments, history instructors look for evidence that students:

• know about the past, and can
• think about the past.

Historians know about the past because they look at what relics have trickled down through the ages. These relics of past civilizations are called primary sources. For some periods and cultures (20th century America, for example), there are tons of primary sources—political documents, newspapers, teenagers’ diaries, high school year books, tax returns, tape-recorded phone conversations, etc. For other periods and cultures, however, historians have very few clues to work with; that’s one reason we know so little about the Aztecs.

Gathering these clues, however, is only part of historians’ work. They also consult other historians’ ideas. These ideas are presented in secondary sources, which include textbooks, monographs, and scholarly articles. Once they’ve studied both primary and secondary sources, historians think. Ideally, after thinking for a while, they come up with a story to link together all these bits of information—an interpretation (read: educated guess) which answers a question about some past event or phenomenon.

Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Except when two historians using different sources come up with contradictory answers to the same question. Even worse, what if two historians ask the same question and use the same sources but come up with different answers? This happens pretty regularly and can lead to heated debates, complete with name-calling. Even today, for example, historians still can’t agree on the extent of apocalyptic panic surrounding the year 1000.

To avoid unnecessary disagreements and survive legitimate debates, good historians explain why their question is important, exactly what sources they found, and how they analyzed those sources to reach a particular interpretation. In other words, they prove that both their approach and answers are valid and significant. This is why historical texts have so many footnotes. It’s also why history instructors put so much emphasis on how you write your paper. In order to evaluate the quality of your answer to a historical question, they need to know not only the “facts,” but also:

• why your question is significant
• where you got your facts
• how you engaged and organized those facts to make your point

To sum up: most UNC history instructors will expect you to both know information and interpret it to answer a question about the past. Your hard-won ability to name all the governors of Idaho in chronological order will mean little unless you can show why and how that chronology is significant.

Typical writing assignments

(For general tips, see our handout on understanding assignments .)

A typical Carolina history course includes several kinds of writing assignments:

• Research papers —As the name suggests, these assignments require you to engage in full-fledged historical research. You will read sources (primary and/or secondary), think about them, and interpret them to answer some question about the past. Note: Contrary to popular fears, research papers are not the most common kind of paper assigned in college-level history courses.
• Response papers —Much more common in survey courses, these assignments ask you to reflect on a given reading, film, or theme of the course and discuss/evaluate some aspect of it. Don’t be disillusioned, however; these are rarely intended to be free-flowing, last minute scrawls on the back of a napkin. Be prepared to address a question and support why you think that way about it.
• Exam essays —Essay exam questions are close cousins of response papers. Assuming you’ve kept up with the course, you should have all the “facts” to answer the question, and need only (!?!) to organize them into a thoughtful interpretation of the past. For tips on this, see our handout on essay exams .
• Book reviews —These will vary depending on the requirements of the course. All book reviews in history should explain the basic argument of the book and assess the argument’s strengths and weaknesses. Your assessment can include an evaluation of the author’s use of evidence, methodology, organization, style, etc. Was the argument convincing? If so, then explain why, and if not, explain why. Some instructors will also expect you to place the book within its historiographical context, examining the relationship between this work and others in the field. For more information, see our handout on book reviews .
• Historiographical essays —These assignments are common in upper-level and graduate history classes. Historiographical essays focus on how scholars have interpreted certain events, not on the events themselves. Basically, these assignments are “histories of history” and require that students be able to explain the different schools of thought on a subject.

Here’s an example of a thesis statement for a historiographical essay:

The historiography of the American Revolution can be primarily seen as a shift between various Whig and Progressive interpretations. While Whig historians are concerned with political ideology and the actions of powerful people, Progressive interpretations generally examine the social causes of the Revolution.

To begin a historiographical essay, you will first read multiple works on the same topic, such as the American Revolution. As you would for a book review, you will then analyze the authors’ arguments, being sure to avoid simple summaries. You can organize your essay chronologically (in the order that the books on the topic were published) or methodologically (grouping historians with similar interpretations together).

Some questions to consider as you write a historiographical essay are: How has the historiography on this subject evolved over time? What are the different schools of thought on the topic, and how do they impact the interpretations of this subject? Why have different scholars come to different conclusions about this topic? You may find some of the information in our handout on literature reviews helpful.

The specifics of your particular assignment will obviously vary. However, if you’re not sure how to attack a writing assignment in your history course (and why else would you be reading this?), try our 8½ Step Plan.

8½ step plan

1. Recall the link between history and writing In case you missed this, history is basically an educated guess about the past.

When you write, you will most likely have to show that you know something about the past and can craft that knowledge into a thoughtful interpretation answering a specific question.

2. Read with an eye towards writing

You will have to read before you write. If the reading has been assigned, guess why your instructor chose it. Whatever you read, ask yourself:

• How does this text relate to the themes of the lecture/discussion section/course?
• What does this text say? What does it not say?
• How do I react to this text? What are my questions? How could I explain it to someone else (summarize it, diagram the main points, critique the logic)?

For more on this, see also our handout on reading to write .

3. Dissect the question

Since you now (having completed step 1) anticipate having to make—and support—an educated guess, pick the question apart. Identify:

A. Opportunities to show what you know. These are requests for information and are usually pretty easy to find. Look for verbs like these:

B. Opportunities to show what you think. These are requests for interpretation. If you’re lucky, they will be just as obvious. Look for key words like these:

Requests for interpretation may not always be worded as questions.

Each of following statements asks for an educated guess:

• Compare the effects of the French Revolution and white bread on French society.
• Analyze what freedom meant to Cleopatra.
• Discuss the extent to which television changed childhood in America.

Warning: Even something as straightforward as “Did peanut butter kill Elvis?” is usually a plea for both knowledge and interpretation. A simple “yes” or “no” is probably not enough; the best answers will include some information about Elvis and peanut butter, offer supporting evidence for both possible positions, and then interpret this information to justify the response.

3½. Dissect any other guidelines just as carefully

Your assignment prompt and/or any writing guidelines your instructor has provided contain valuable hints about what you must or could include in your essay.

Consider the following questions:

• In all papers for this course, be sure to make at least one reference to lecture notes.
• Evaluate two of the four social classes in early modern Timbuktu.

History instructors often begin an assignment with a general “blurb” about the subject, which many students skip in order to get to the “real” question. These introductory statements, however, can offer clues about the expected content and organization of your essay. Example:

The modern world has witnessed a series of changes in the realm of breadmaking. The baker’s code of earlier societies seemed no longer relevant to a culture obsessed with fiber content and caloric values. The meaning of these developments has been hotly contested by social historians such as Al White and A. Loaf. Drawing on lecture notes, class readings, and your interpretation of the film, The Yeast We Can Do , explain which European culture played the greatest role in the post-war breadmaking revolution.

Although it’s possible this instructor is merely revealing his/her own nutritional obsessions, a savvy student could glean important information from the first two sentences of this assignment. A strong answer would not only pick a culture and prove its importance to the development of breadmaking, but also:

• summarize the relationship between this culture and the series of changes in breadmaking
• briefly explain the irrelevance of the baker’s code
• relate the answer to both the arguments of White and Loaf and the modern world’s obsessions

For more on this, see our handout on understanding assignments .

4. Jot down what you know and what you think This is important because it helps you develop an argument about the question.

Make two lists, one of facts and one of thoughts.

FACTS: What do you know about breadmaking, based on your sources? You should be able to trace each item in this list to a specific source (lecture, the textbook, a primary source reading, etc).

THOUGHTS: What’s the relationship between these facts? What’s your reaction to them? What conclusions might a reasonable person draw? If this is more difficult (which it should be), try:

• Freewriting. Just write about your subject for 5-10 minutes, making no attempt to use complete sentences, prove your ideas, or otherwise sound intelligent.
• Jotting down your facts in no particular order on a blank piece of paper, then using highlighters or colored pencils to arrange them in sets, connect related themes, link related ideas, or show a chain of developments.
• Scissors. Write down whatever facts and ideas you can think of. Cut up the list and then play with the scraps. Group related ideas or opposing arguments or main points and supporting details.

5. Make an argument This is where many people panic, but don’t worry, you only need an argument, not necessarily an earth-shattering argument. In our example, there is no need to prove that Western civilization would have died out without bread. If you’ve been given a question, ask yourself, “How can I link elements of my two lists to address the question?” If you get stuck, try:

• Looking back at steps 3 and 3½
• More freewriting
• Talking with someone
• Letting all the information “gel” in your mind. Give your subconscious mind a chance to work. Get a snack, take a walk, etc.

If no question has been assigned, give yourself plenty of time to work on step 4. Alternately, convince yourself to spend thirty minutes on a 6-sided strategy Donald Daiker calls “cubing.” (If thirty minutes seems like a long time, remember most instructors really, really, really want to see some kind of argument.) Spend no more than five minutes writing on each of the following (just thinking doesn’t count; you have to get it down on paper):

• Describe your subject. It’s breadmaking. Everyone eats bread. Bread can be different textures and colors and sizes…
• Compare it. Breadmaking is like making steel because you combine raw ingredients…It’s totally different than…
• Associate it. My grandfather made bread twice a week. Breadmaking makes me think of butter, cheese, milk, cows, the Alps. Loaf talks about Germans, and some of them live in the Alps.
• Analyze it. White thinks that French bread is the best; Loaf doesn’t. There are different kinds of bread, different steps in the breadmaking process, different ways to make bread…
• Apply it. You could teach a course on breadmaking. You could explain Franco-German hostilities based on their bread preferences…
• Argue for or against it. Breadmaking is important because every culture has some kind of bread. People focus so much on food fads like smoothies, the “other white meat,” and Jell-O, but bread has kept more people alive over time…

Now, do any of these ideas seem significant? Do they tie in to some theme of your reading or course? Do you have enough information in your earlier “facts” and “thoughts” lists to PROVE any of these statements? If you’re still stumped, gather up all your lists and go talk with your instructor. The lists will prove to them you’ve actually tried to come up with an argument on your own and give the two of you something concrete to talk about. For more on this, see our handout on making an argument , handout on constructing thesis statements , and handout on asking for feedback on your writing .

6. Organize

Let’s say you’ve batted around some ideas and come up with the following argument:

Although White’s argument about the role of food fads suggests that French culture drove the modern breadmaking revolution, careful consideration of Loaf’s thesis proves that German emigres irreversibly changed traditional attitudes towards bread.

The next step is to figure out a logical way to explain and prove your argument. Remember that the best thesis statements both take a position and give readers a map to guide them through the paper. Look at the parts of your thesis and devote a section of your essay to each part. Here’s one (but not the only) way to organize an essay based on the above argument:

• P1: Introduction: Why is breadmaking a relevant subject? Who are White and Loaf? Give thesis statement.
• P2: What is/was the breadmaking revolution? What traditional attitudes did it change?
• P3: How does White’s argument about food fads lead one to believe the French have dominated this revolution?
• P4: Why is White wrong?
• P5: What is Loaf’s thesis and how do you see it asserting the role of German emigres?
• P6: Why does Loaf’s thesis make sense?
• P7: Conclusion: Sum up why Loaf’s argument is stronger, explain how society has been changed the breadmaking revolution as he understands it, and tie these ideas back to your original argument.

7. Fill in the content

Fill in each section—also called a paragraph—using your lists from step 5. In addition to filling in what you know and what you think, remember to explain each section’s role in proving your argument and how each paragraph relates to those before and after it. For more help with this, see our handout on introductions , handout on conclusions , handout on transitions , and handout on paragraph development .

Ideally, this would really be steps 8, 9, and 10 (maybe even 11 and 12 for a big or important paper), but you’d never have gotten this far if you suspected there were that many steps. To maintain the illusion, let’s just call them 8a, 8b, and 8c.

8a. Check the organization This is really double-checking STEP 6. Do the parts of your paper make sense—and prove your point—in this order?

8b. Check content First, read your draft and ask yourself how each section relates to your thesis or overall argument. Have you explained this relationship? If not, would it be easier to rework the body of your paper to fit your argument or to revise your thesis to fit the existing content?

Next, reread your draft, and identify each sentence (based on its actual content): Is it “knowing” or “thinking” or both? Write one or both of those words in the margin. After doing this for each sentence in the whole paper, go back and tally up how many times you scribbled “I know” and “I think.” This next part is important:

THE “KNOWS” and “THINKS” SHOULD BALANCE EACH OTHER OUT (more or less).

This should usually be true both within specific paragraphs and in the paper as a whole. It’s fine to have 4 “knows” and 6 “thinks,” but if things are way out of balance, reread the assignment very carefully to be sure you didn’t miss something. Even if they ask for your opinion, most history instructors expect you to back it up by interpreting historical evidence or examples.

8c. Proofread for style and grammar This is also important. Even though you’re not writing for an English course, style and grammar are very important because they help you communicate ideas. For additional tips, see our handout on style and handout on proofreading .

While every assignment and course will have its unique quirks and requirements, you’re now armed with a set of basic guidelines to help you understand what your instructors expect and work through writing assignments in history. For more information, refer to the following resources or make an appointment to work with a tutor at the Writing Center.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Collingwood, R. G. 1989. The Written World: Reading and Writing in Social Contexts . New York: Harper Collins.

Daiker, Donald, Andrew Kerek, and Max Morenberg. 1994. The Writer’s Options: Combining to Composing , 5th ed. New York: Harper & Row.

Marius, Richard, and Melvin E. Page. 2010. A Short Guide to Writing About History , 7th ed. New York: Longman.

Smith, Hadley M. 2012. Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader for Writers , edited by Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy, 7th ed. New York: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• HISTORICAL THINKING CONCEPTS
• Establish Historical Significance
• Use Primary Source Evidence
• Identify Continuity and Change
• Analyze Cause and Consequence
• Take Historical Perspectives
• Understand Ethical Dimensions of History

Historical Significance

The past is everything that ever happened to anyone anywhere. There is much too much history to remember all of it. So how do we make choices about what is worth remembering? Significant events include those that resulted in great change over long periods of time for large numbers of people. World War II passes the test for historical significance in this sense. But what could be significant about the life of a worker or a slave? What about my own ancestors, who are clearly significant to me, but not necessarily to others? Significance depends upon one’s perspective and purpose. A historical person or event can acquire significance if we, the historians, can link it to larger trends and stories that reveal something important for us today. For example, the story of an individual worker in Winnipeg in 1918, however insignificant in the World War II sense, may become significant if it is recounted in a way that makes it a part of a larger history of workers’ struggles, economic development, or post-war adjustment and discontent. In that case, the “insignificant” life reveals something important to us, and thus becomes significant. Both “It is significant because it is in the history book,” and “It is significant because I am interested in it,” are inadequate explanations of historical significance.

© Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness

Resources: Discussions and Assignments

Module 2 assignment: description, context, significance.

In this module, we learned about the description, the historical context, and the significance of historical events. For this assignment, you will describe a primary source document, then share its historical context and significance.

Instructions:

Step 1: Pick an event discussed in this module that is highlighted by some of the primary source documents from the reader for this week:

• Primary Source: Jamestown Charter, 1606
• Primary Source: Richard Hakluyt Makes the Case for English Colonization, 1584
• Primary Source: A Gaspesian Indian Defends His Way of Life, 1641
• Primary Source: John Lawson Encounters North American Indians, 1709
• Primary Source: A Slave Revolt, 1732
• Primary Source: The Life of Gustavus Vassa, 1789

Step 2: First, describe the event or events in detail. Answer all of the relevant questions—who? what? when? where? why? how? Reference the primary source documents and do further research (Wikipedia is fine for this) to fill out a description.

Step 3: What is the historical context of your event? Specifically, identify at least two major, related events that happened within that time period, or, if there is a specific date, within ten years of that main event. Then find at least two other major events that happened within fifty years. Write out these five events on a timeline and then write a paragraph about how these events are connected. You may want to use this timeline as a helpful resource.

Step 4: What is the significance of the event you chose? What insights does it provide into this time period? Why do you think historians have deemed it significant?

Assignment Grading Rubric:

• Assignment: Description, Context, Significance. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

Writing about the significance of historical agents: the effects of reading and writing instruction

• Published: 29 December 2022

Cite this article

• Johan van Driel 1 ,
• Jannet van Driel 1 &
• Carla van Boxtel 1  

2115 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Historians often present their interpretation of the past in written accounts. In order to gain deeper knowledge of the discipline of history, students must learn how to read and write historical accounts. In this experimental pretest–posttest study, we investigated the impact of a domain-specific reading instruction followed by domain-specific writing-strategy instruction as well as a repeated domain-specific reading instruction on the quality of written texts and on procedural knowledge regarding reading, reasoning, and writing of 142 10th grade students. Results indicated that both instructions had a positive impact on the quality of written texts and on the amount of procedural knowledge (reading, reasoning, and writing). However, students who received a domain-specific writing instruction after the reading instruction wrote better texts compared to students who only received a domain-specific reading-to-write instruction. In addition, we found positive correlations between procedural knowledge and the quality of written texts in both conditions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction

Not quite eye to A.I.: student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process

Word problems in mathematics education: a survey

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In current history curricula, researchers focus more and more on fostering students’ reasoning using historical facts, concepts, and procedures. This approach assumes that understanding history is more than knowledge of historical events and that historians have their own approaches for interpreting the past and writing accounts (Chapman, 2011 ; Paul, 2019 ). In schools, students are often expected to interpret past events and to present their interpretation in an argumentative text (De La Paz, 2005 ; De La Paz & Felton, 2010 ; van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018 ; Wissinger et al., 2020 ). Primary sources (e.g., chronicles) play an important role when historians interpret the past. Historians embed these sources in their arguments to underpin their interpretation (Wineburg, 1991 , 1998 ). The understanding of primary sources is often part of current discussions between historians. Consequently, current historiographical discussions and the reading of primary sources intertwine (Fallace & Neem, 2005 ).

History education researchers often focus on reading primary sources (e.g., letters) or on writings that use primary sources. This kind of research has developed useful insights (e.g., De La Paz, 2005 ; Reisman, 2012 ). Reading historical accounts, in which historians present an underpinned interpretation of the past, has gained less attention (Cercadillo et al., 2017 ; Innes, 2020 ). Reading accounts is important in order to understand how other historians interpreted the past, which is useful to develop a personal interpretation. Historical accounts can also inform students how historians’ perspectives have developed over time. Descriptions of the past are not fixed and can change due to developing frames of reference and new questions that arise. This flexible relationship between the present and the past becomes clearly visible in discussions about the significance of historical persons and events (Hunt, 2000 ; Lévesque, 2008 ; Seixas & Morton, 2012 ). For example, many statues of national heroes were built in the nineteenth century. Although these persons are still significant, current historians consider these monuments more critically, which has led to discussions as to whether these statues should be removed.

To improve students’ reasoning and written interpretation, researchers in history education often focus on the impact of domain-specific writing-strategy instruction. Instructional principles such as explicit instruction, prompts, small group work, and whole-class discussion have made a positive impact on the quality of written texts (e.g., De La Paz, 2005 ; De La Paz et al., 2022 ; van Drie et al., 2015 ; van Drie et al., 2021 ; Wissinger et al., 2020 ). These general principles are made domain-specific, by, for example, by focusing on historical evidence and using the historical context in order to comprehend evidence (Monte-Sano, 2010 ). Domain-specific writing instruction, teaches students how to construct historical arguments from multiple, sometimes conflicting, sources and use examples, details, or quotations to substantiate claims (Wissinger & De La Paz, 2016 ). Another approach focuses on reading instruction. In a meta-analysis, Graham et al. ( 2018 ) found positive effects of reading instruction on writing. Although not widely researched in history education, we found positive effects in an earlier study (van Driel et al., 2022 ). Because reading and writing are important for writing about historical significance, we are interested in the additional effect of writing instruction compared to reading instruction on the quality of written texts.

Reading accounts, arguing for a particular interpretation of the past, or judging the significance of a historical agent requires procedural knowledge, which is associated with the development of historical reasoning (e.g., Stoel et al, 2017 ), reading (e.g., van Gelderen et al., 2007 ), and writing (Klein & Kirkpatrick, 2010 ). However, our knowledge of how procedural knowledge contributes to reading, reasoning, and writing in history classrooms is limited. We need to know how students acquire procedural knowledge (Gross, 2002 ; van Drie et al., 2018 ).

In this experimental study, we aimed to compare the effects of a domain-specific reading-to-write instruction followed by a domain-specific writing-strategy instruction with a repeated domain-specific reading-to-write instruction. This study was conducted with 142 10th grade students who read historical accounts and developed a unique claim about the significance of historical agents in a written text. The reading and writing condition (R&W) received domain-specific reading-to-write instruction. This instruction was followed by domain-specific writing instruction. The reading-to-write condition (R&R) received two domain-specific reading-to-write instructions.

Theoretical framework

Reading historical accounts.

People in the past have left traces such as diaries and paintings. Historians’ craft is to analyze these traces and to construct a coherent picture of the past—substantiated with evidence, arguments and comprehended within the historical context (Chapman, 2011 ; Paul, 2019 ; Wineburg, 1991 , 1998 ). Historians commonly present their understanding of the past in accounts, which often contain arguments embedded in a narrative. This means that claims about the significance of historical agents need to be underpinned with arguments. The complete set of historical accounts is called historiography. Discussions regarding historiography may elicit other historical questions; consequently, history is an ongoing interpretation of the past (Paul, 2017 ). In the context of historical significance, this means that historians attempt to understand how the assignment of significance to the past has changed over time, how to relate different accounts to each other, and how to relate accounts to the broader historiographical discussion (Fallace, 2007 ; Fallace & Neem, 2005 ; Seixas & Morton, 2012 ).

Understanding historians’ discussions and how historians argue in their accounts seems difficult for students. A small-scale study found that history teachers considered evolving interpretations of the past as too complex for senior high school students (Wansink et al., 2018 ). Reading conflicting historical accounts has not garnered much attention by educational researchers (Cercadillo et al., 2017 ; Innes, 2020 ). However, reading historical accounts could deepen students’ understanding of the history discipline because doing so requires recognition and understanding of historians’ perspectives—how facts are made meaningful by historians and how they argue in order to place (counter)factual evidence in the background or foreground (Fallace & Neem, 2005 ; Körber, 2015 ; Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006 ). Although historical reading aligns with close reading, close reading can be operationalized in different ways—analyzing how writers use language to reach a goal belongs to every model (Fang, 2016 ).

Comprehending the metatextual level of historical accounts is not often practiced in classrooms, but there is reason to believe that students could learn to understand history as an ongoing interpretation of the past. Previous research has shown that students of different age groups showed basic understanding of the existence of different perspectives in history (Cercadillo, 2001 ; Cercadillo et al., 2017 ; Houwen et al., 2020 ). In addition, because students are able to learn specific features of language after instruction (Levine, 2014 ), they could learn specific historical language in order to analyze how historians assign significance to the past. Furthermore, instruction about reading historical accounts more often provoked students’ knowledge of the interpretative nature of history, compared to students who did not receive that instruction (van Driel et al., 2022 ).

Writing in history education

In the last decades, a growing body of research has stressed the importance of domain-specific writing, which assumes that every discipline possesses its own approach to writing. An often-applied approach is strategy instruction (Klein & Boscolo, 2016 ).

According to Klein and Boscolo ( 2016 ), strategy instruction in history education often includes reading primary documents and developing (counter)arguments and rebuttals. Special attention must be paid to the construction of counterarguments because students seldom involve counterarguments in their argumentation (van Drie et al., 2006 ). There is reason to believe that strategy instruction improves text quality regarding historical argumentation and the interpretation of historical sources. In these studies, historians’ approaches are adapted to classrooms, which means that arguments are made more explicit than in narratives. Students are often expected to involve a claim and evidence, based on historical sources (comprehended with the historical context) or accurate interpreted facts in their arguments (e.g., Coffin, 2006 ; De La Paz, 2005 ; De La Paz & Felton, 2010 ; De La Paz et al., 2017 ; Monte-Sano, 2010 ; Schleppegrell, 2004 ; van Drie et al., 2015 ; Wissinger et al., 2020 ).

Despite the promising results of writing-strategy instruction, there is need for other approaches to gain more insight into the benefits and limitations of each approach (van Drie et al., 2015 ; Wissinger et al., 2020 ). Another approach is reading-to-write instruction, which assumes that reading and writing appeal to the same knowledge base, such as domain knowledge, text attributes, and procedural knowledge (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000 ). Consequently, explicit reading instruction may also improve text quality. Although reading instruction does not always improve students’ writing (Goldman et al., 2019 ), a meta-analysis by Graham et al. ( 2018 ) shows that a small or moderate effect is typical. For instance, reading instruction about text structure, discussing content, identifying text statements, the use of specific language, and even independent reading might improve students’ ability to write a persuasive text or to summarize and interpret a text (Crowhurst, 1990 ; Jouhar & Rupley, 2021 ; Levine, 2014 ).

In the field of history education, our knowledge of the effects of reading-to-write instruction is limited. Former research has shown that reading instruction improves writing; however, the quality (e.g., Introduction and Conclusion) can always be improved (van Driel et al., 2022 ). For that reason, it seems important to investigate the effects of reading instruction and to compare the outcomes with a combined reading and writing instruction. Indeed, a combined instruction might be the most effective overall (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000 ).

Procedural knowledge

During our review of previous research, we made (indirect) references to procedural knowledge, which is an abstract kind of knowledge. Procedural knowledge can illuminate the justification of knowledge in a particular domain (Hofer, 2004 ; Poitras & Lajoie, 2013 ). In our study, procedural knowledge informs researchers (1) of how to assign historical significance and (2) how to regard reading and writing in the context of a task about historical significance.

The concept of historical significance is a metahistorical concept, which could be used to organize factual knowledge and to construct a reasoning about historical phenomena (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018 ). Judgements about the significance of a historical agent are based on criteria, which often focus on the consequences caused by this historical agent over time (e.g., Hunt, 2000 ; Lévesque, 2008 ). Although our knowledge about how students use these criteria is limited, knowledge of these criteria could be helpful while assigning significance to the past.

General research has revealed the importance of procedural knowledge for reading (e.g., Trapman et al., 2014 ; van Gelderen et al., 2007 ) and writing (e.g., Klein & Kirkpatrick, 2010 ; Schoonen & de Glopper, 1996 ). Students need knowledge about how text components belong to a (historical) genre (e.g., Introduction, how to use criteria for historical significance) and which procedures (e.g., text planning, how to [de]construct arguments about historical significance) are often used by experts when reading or writing (Klein & Boscolo, 2016 ; Schoonen & de Glopper, 1996 ). In the field of history education, however, we have limited knowledge about the impact of instruction on the acquisition of procedural knowledge regarding reading (Gross, 2002 ), writing (van Drie et al., 2018 ), and the concept of historical significance (van Drie et al., 2013 ). We need more insight regarding the acquisition of procedural knowledge and whether the quality of students’ written text about historical significance is related to students’ procedural knowledge.

Aim of the study

We aimed to discover the additional value of writing instruction and reading instruction on the quality of students’ written texts in history and on their procedural knowledge. Three questions guided this work:

What are the effects of a domain-specific reading-to-write instruction followed by domain-specific writing-strategy instruction (R&W), compared to a repeated domain-specific reading-to-write instruction (R&R), on the quality of students’ written text about historical significance regarding a historical agent?

What are the effects of a domain-specific reading-to-write instruction followed by domain-specific writing-strategy instruction, compared to a repeated domain-specific reading-to-write instruction, on students’ procedural knowledge regarding reading, writing, and reasoning about the significance of a historical agent?

Does a relationship exist between the quality of students’ argumentative texts about historical significance and their procedural knowledge regarding reading, writing, and reasoning about the significance of a historical agent?

Based on these questions, we formulated the following hypotheses. First, we expected that students in both conditions would write significantly better texts at the posttest compared to the pretest. Second, we hypothesized that regarding the quality of the argumentative texts, students in the R&W condition would make significantly more progress between the pretest and the posttest, compared to students in the R&R condition. Third, we expected that students in both conditions would demonstrate more procedural knowledge at the posttest compared to the pretest. Fourth, we expected that students in the R&W condition would demonstrate significantly more procedural knowledge in writing about historical significance at the posttest, compared to students in the R&R condition. Finally, we expected a significant positive relationship between the quality of the written texts and students’ procedural knowledge.

Participants

This study included 142 10th grade students, preparing for university of applied sciences ( N  = 91) or university ( N  = 51; male: 93; female: 47). In order to ensure that possible positive results stemmed from our intervention, all students came from six history classes from one suburban school in a rural area in the Netherlands. All students gave their active consent for participating in this study. All lessons were taught by one teacher (first author), who has a master degree in history and had been teaching history for seventeen years. He participated regularly in professionalization on historical topics and pedagogy (including teaching historical thinking).

Within each class, students were randomly assigned to one of the six teaching groups. Subsequently, three of these teaching groups were randomly assigned to the R&W condition ( N  = 72) and three to the R&R condition ( N  = 70). The overall class size varied between 19 and 29 students.

In previous years, students had lessons on the topics chosen for this intervention study (Columbus and Napoleon). Consequently, we expected that students would have some contextual knowledge. The relevant time period, was taught just before the intervention. According to the formal attainment goals in the Netherlands, students must understand the interpretive nature of history, but this is not assessed in a detailed manner in the central exam and is often not explicitly taught. So, we expected students to have only superficial knowledge of the interpretive nature of history. The concept of historical significance and competencies regarding reading or writing historical accounts are not explicitly mentioned in the Dutch curriculum (CvtE, 2018 ).

Materials and interventions

For this study, we developed two interventions consisting of five lessons each. All lessons were developed by the first author and discussed with the second and third author, which led to small changes. The topic of the first intervention was Columbus and the second was Napoleon. Both topics were closely related to the topics covered in the classes. As a part of the intervention, students were asked to write a text in which they described the contrasting perspectives of two historians regarding the significance of a historical agent. Students were also asked to develop a claim concerning the significance of this agent and to substantiate this claim with explicit arguments (Appendix A ). This type of text is called historical discussion (Coffin, 2006 ).

In both interventions, all students received the same materials: two texts (1) one contained the perspective of a nineteenth century historian who described a historical agent from a nationalistic perspective and (2) another which contained the critical perspective from a twentieth century historian regarding the same historical agent. All text were written in a narrative style. Historical arguments were often not explicitly presented in such a text. For example, several historical events were emphasized by the author by calling them ‘of great importance’ or ‘long lasting effects’. Counterfactual evidence was placed in the background by calling the consequences ‘temporally’. The texts were not used as examples of good historical argumentation. The reading to write instruction in both interventions supported students in identifying interpretative language, the message of the authors and how the authors applied criteria for historical significance. Materials also included biographical highlights of the historical agent in question and some background information about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

All materials were developed by the first researchers and discussed in the research group, which led to minor adaptions. A Flesch-Kincaid readability test (Kincaid et al., 1975 ) varied from grade 10.0 to 12.2, which means that all text were challenging, but appropriate for this grade level.

Commonalities and differences between both conditions During the first intervention, the R&W condition received a reading-to-write instruction, and during the second intervention, the R&W condition received a reading- and writing-strategy instruction. In contrast, the R&R condition received a reading-to-write instruction during both interventions. A general overview about which form of instruction both conditions received during the school year and which historical agents were discussed is presented in Table 1 .

Reading-to-write instruction The reading-to-write instruction was given to both conditions in Intervention 1 and to the R&R condition in Intervention 2. The general structure of the lessons of the reading-to-write instruction was as follows. During the first lesson, the focus was on the concept of historical significance and on the importance of perspectives on the past. In the second lesson, students received instruction about interpretative language—on how to ask metacognitive questions while reading (e.g., “what is the authors’ message,” “how is the authors’ reasoning constructed,” and “how is the author influenced by the historical context”?) and on how an author applied criteria for historical significance. For example, students were asked to underline interpreting words like “for centuries” and “important”. During the second part of the lesson, students used this knowledge while reading a historical account. Students applied their knowledge about reading in the third lesson, when they independently read the texts. The structure (elements of the introduction, body, and conclusion) of the texts was discussed during the fourth lesson, using a mentor text. Students wrote their text in the last lesson. The teacher made no remarks about writing or applying knowledge of texts while writing.

Writing-strategy instruction Only the R&W condition received this instruction during Intervention 2 (Napoleon). The first lesson contained the same elements as the reading-to-write instruction (historical significance and historical perspectives). During the second lesson, students’ knowledge was reactivated and students applied this knowledge independently (without prompts or whole-class discussion) in small groups while reading both accounts, discussing and answering the questions regarding message of the author, how the message was constructed, and historical context (Intervention I). During the third lesson, students received instruction about text components of the historical discussion (introduction, body, conclusion). This instruction was domain-specific due to the attention, for example, to introduce in the introduction ones position on the significance of the historical agent, and to discuss the development in thinking about a historical agent in the main paragraphs. The teacher modeled how to write an introduction and conclusion, and students independently wrote these parts of a text, but focused on another topic. Instruction on how to construct historical arguments regarding historical significance was provided during the fourth lesson. The teacher, discussed how to write historical arguments (containing a claim supported with arguments. This instruction was also domain-specific due to the attention to, for example, arguments related to the impact of a historical person on the long term. The teacher also modeled how to write (counter)arguments and rebuttals in history, after which students wrote some historical arguments together in small groups. This lesson concluded with examples of relevant language for historians related to historical significance and historical perspectives (e.g., leading to, important, in that time). Students wrote their texts during the last lesson.

A general overview about both methods of instruction is presented in Table 2 .

Research instruments

In order to investigate the effects of our interventions, we measured improvement in writing and students’ procedural knowledge.

Text quality As a pretest and posttest, students were asked to write an argumentative text in order to measure text quality. Students were tasked to describe how the assignment of historical significance to a historical agent has changed since 1800 and to develop a unique and substantiated claim about the significance of a historical agent. This type of texts fits in with the genre ‘historical discussion’ (Coffin, 2006 ). At the pretest, students were asked to write an argumentative text about the Roman emperor Constantine I (ca. 280–337). At the posttest, students wrote a text about the British colonist Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902). In order to fulfill the tasks, students received two historical accounts by two historians, who evaluated the historical agent in different ways. These texts were written in the same style as the intervention texts. Table 3 shows the results of a Flesch-Kincaid readability test (Kincaid et al., 1975 ) and we concluded that all texts that were used in the intervention lessons were on an appropriate level. In addition, all students received additional sources: background information about the historical context in which both historians lived and some biographical highlights.

Procedural knowledge of reading, reasoning, and writing In order to measure students’ procedural knowledge, we used an adapted version of an open knowledge test, developed by Schoonen and de Glopper ( 1996 ), as a pretest and as a posttest. Students were asked to provide recommendations to a classmate in order to read historical accounts about the significance of a historical person and to write a text about the significance of a historical person (Appendix B ). We also used this test in an earlier study (van Driel et al., 2022 ). This procedural knowledge test includes lower aspects (e.g., punctation) as well as higher aspects of procedural knowledge (e.g., “relate the author to the historical context”).

All data were gathered during the 2019–2020 school year, in the period between October and May. All students filled out the pretest one week before the start of the first intervention lessons. After three months, Intervention 2 took place. Students filled out the posttest one week after completing the second lesson unit.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, all schools in the Netherlands were closed on March 16th, 2020. Consequently, some parts of the intervention (the last two lessons of Intervention 2 and the posttest) were provided in an online learning environment. In order to ensure that all students wrote their texts independently, the teacher stressed that the aim was to investigate the quality of written texts and not to assess their texts with a grade. In addition, students were asked to engage their microphone and camera so that the teacher could verify whether students only used the materials of our intervention and whether they worked independently. All students, except a few who encountered technical problems, complied with this request.

Implementation fidelity

We used three instruments to measure the fidelity of implementation: (1) We developed a detailed lesson plan for both conditions, (2) a detailed description was made after each lesson in order to compare the lesson with the original plan, and (3) all available student booklets were checked in order to verify whether they did the assignments as intended.

Based on these data, we can conclude that both interventions were conducted as intended. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, however, some small group assignments were changed into individual assignments. Based on a pattern of different student responses to assignments, we noticed some differences between whole-class discussions across all groups. In one class, for example, students’ answers were more related to moral issues (regarding inequality caused by Columbus), compared to other classes, which were focusing on the significance of Columbus in the sixteenth century. However, all important activities (e.g.; discussing metacognitive questions) were implemented as intended. Students in the R&R-condition filled out 65% (lesson unit 1) and 84% (lesson unit 2) of all assignments; students in the R&W-condition 72% (lesson unit 1) and 73% (lesson unit 2).

Quality of written texts All texts (pretest, Lesson Unit 1, Lesson Unit 2, posttest) were coded using an adapted version of a previously developed coding scheme (van Driel et al., 2022 ). This coding scheme is highly domain-specific. This coding scheme contains main categories focusing on Structure (subcategories: Introduction, Body, and Conclusion), General Writing Aspects (subcategories: Audience-Orientated Writing and Coherence), and Reasoning About Significance (subcategories: Addressing Different Perspectives, Using the Historical Context, Use of Criteria for Significance, and the Use of Historical Facts and Concepts). The complete coding scheme is presented in Appendix C . Students are expected to write a historical discussion (Coffin, 2006 ). This means that the main category structure is operationalized in a domain-specific manner. For example, our rubric required to include a description of historical perspectives in the body of the text. A historical perspective, requires historians’ arguments and information about the historical context of the historian. Furthermore, students received a higher score for their introduction when they included a position on the significance of the historical agent. After three training sessions, in which the coding scheme was discussed, the first author and a research assistant independently coded approximately 18% of all texts, equally taken from both conditions and tasks (pretest, Intervention 1, Intervention 2, posttest). The calculated Cohen’s Kappa for all subcategories varied between 0.67 and 0.78, which is considered acceptable (Field, 2018 ). All other texts were coded by the first author.

The calculated Cronbach’s Alfa for the various measurement moments were 0.56, 0.66, 0.75, and 0.69 for the pretest, Intervention 1, Intervention 2, and posttest, respectively. The scores at the pretest showed a relatively low reliability. Given the limitation of Cronbach’s Alfa (Field, 2018 ), we decided to consider our coding scheme as a coherent construct.

A Shapiro–Wilk test showed that, except for the pretest, all data fit the assumption of normality. We used a Mann–Whitney test to check differences between both conditions. The Mann–Whitney test showed no differences at the pretest between the R&W condition and the R&R condition ( p  = 0.20). We used repeated measures to examine possible differences between the conditions. The independent variable (between subjects) was the type of instruction: R&W versus R&R. The dependent variable was the quality of the written texts. We also included Time as a factor at four levels: pretest, Intervention 1, Intervention 2, and posttest.

Procedural knowledge All data were coded using a previously developed coding scheme, which contained elements regarding reading, reasoning about historical significance, and writing (van Driel et al., 2022 ). The complete coding scheme is presented in Appendix D . After a training session, the first author and a research assistant independently coded approximately 18% of all recommendations, equally taken from pretest and posttest and from both conditions. The calculated Cohen’s Kappa was 0.90, which is considered good (Field, 2018 ). A Shapiro–Wilk test showed that the data did not fit the assumption of normality. We decided to use a Wilcoxon test to examine differences between both conditions as well as the progression. No differences were found between both conditions at the pretest regarding the total amount of procedural knowledge, p  = 0.78, nor for the main categories, which included reasoning about significance, p  = 0.59, reading, p  = 0.30, and writing, p  = 0.27.

Missing data All missing data were excluded listwise, which altered the number of participants.

Quality of written texts

All mean scores with respect to the quality of the written essays are presented in Table 4 . This table shows considerable improvement in both conditions at almost all subcategories, with an exception of the subcategory ‘conclusion’ in the R&R condition. An example of a text (R&W condition) is presented in Appendix E .

Our hypothesis was that the quality of the written texts would improve in both conditions from pre- to posttest (Hypothesis 1) but that students in the R&W condition would show significantly more improvement compared to students in the R&R condition (Hypothesis 2). Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated for the main effect of Time, χ 2 (5) = 22.20, p  < 0.05. Therefore, we corrected the degrees of freedom using Greenhouse–Geisser estimates of sphericity, ε = 0.90 for the main effect of Time. There was a significant effect of Time on the overall quality of the written texts, F (2.70, 305.17) = 133.22, p  = 0.00, r  = 0.55. This effect size is considered large (Field, 2018 ). The overall quality of the texts increased linearly over the course of four measures (pretest, Intervention 1, Intervention 2, and posttest). There was also a significant main effect of the type of intervention (R&W, R&R) on the quality of the written texts, F (1, 113) = 10.19, p  = 0.00, r  = 0.29.

This effect size can be considered small. In addition, there was a significant interaction effect between Time and Condition, F (2.70, 305.17) = 2.97, p  = 0.037, r  = 0.10. This effect size can be considered small, but we found a large effect size (see also Fig.  1 ) for the first hypothesis (improvement over the course of four measures). These results confirm our first and second hypotheses.

Overall Text Quality Scores at Pre-, Intervention 1, Intervention 2, and Posttest

In order to gain more detailed insight, we used a MANOVA to explore differences between both conditions with respect to the posttest scores on text structure, general writing aspects, and reasoning about historical significance. At the pretest, we found no significant differences between the conditions: text structure, p  = 0.05, general writing aspects, p  = 0.49, and reasoning about historical significance, p  = 0.55. At posttest, we found a significant difference between both conditions with respect to text structure regarding the genre historical discussion, F (1, 124) = 18.35, p  = 0.00. Students in the R&W condition scored significantly higher on text structure than students in the R&R condition. No significant differences were found with respect to general writing aspects, p  = 0.19, or reasoning about historical significance, p  = 0.68.

The general results regarding the acquisition of procedural knowledge, including the main categories, are presented in Table 5 .

For both conditions, we assumed that the total amount of procedural knowledge would increase (Hypothesis 3). With respect to the R&W condition, the amount of procedural knowledge at the posttest ( Mdn  = 11.00, SD  = 5.64) was significantly higher than at the pretest ( Mdn  = 3.50; SD  = 3.12), z = −  6.65, p  = 0.00, r  = − 0.81. This effect size is considered large (Cohen, 1988 ). In the R&R condition, a Wilcoxon test showed that, compared to the pretest ( Mdn  = 3.00, SD  = 2.37), the total amount of procedural knowledge was significantly higher at the posttest ( Mdn  = 8.50, SD  = 4.80), z = = −  5.97, p  = 0.00, r  = −  0.77. This effect size is considered large (Cohen, 1988 ). A Wilcoxon test also showed a significant difference between both conditions at the posttest (R&W, Mdn  = 11.00, SD  = 5.64; R&R, Mdn  = 8.50, SD  = 4.80), z =  −  2.91, p  = 0.004, r = − 0.26. This effect size is considered small (Cohen, 1988 ). Students in the R&W condition scored significantly higher than students in the R&R condition. This confirmed our third hypothesis.

At the posttest, we also expected significant differences between both conditions regarding procedural knowledge about writing and no significant differences with respect to reasoning about significance and reading (Hypothesis 4). With respect to reasoning about significance, however, we found a significant difference between the R&W condition ( Mdn  = 2.00, SD  = 2.02) and the R&R condition ( Mdn  = 1.00, SD  = 1.54), z =  −  2.20, p  = 0.028, r  = 0.19. This effect size is considered small (Field, 2018 ). No significant differences were found regarding reading ( p  = 0.14) and writing ( p  = 0.10). Our fourth hypothesis cannot be confirmed.

Correlation between procedural knowledge and text quality

We assumed that students’ procedural knowledge would positively correlate with the quality of written texts (Hypothesis 5). We found a weak-to-moderate relationship between the amount of procedural knowledge and the quality of written texts in both conditions at the posttest—regarding the R&W condition ( N  = 65), Pearson’s r  = 0.494, p  = 0.00, and the R&R condition ( N  = 55), Pearson’s r  = 0.340, p  = 0.01. These findings confirm Hypothesis 5.

In order to gain more detailed insight, we explored whether procedural knowledge of reasoning, reading, and writing correlated with text quality. In the R&W condition, we found positive correlations between text quality and both procedural knowledge of reasoning, Pearson’s r  = 0.280, p  = 0.02, and writing, Pearson’s r  = 0.404, p  = 0.00. No significant correlation was found for procedural knowledge of reading and text quality, Pearson’s r  = 0.117, p  = 0.35. In the R&R condition, we found a positive correlation between procedural knowledge of writing and text quality, Pearson’s r  = 0.349, p  = 0.00. No significant correlations were found between text quality and both procedural knowledge of reasoning, Pearson’s r  = 0.067, p  = 0.63, and reading, Pearson’s r  =  − 0.026, p  = 0.85.

Discussion and conclusion

This experimental study aimed to investigate the impact of a reading-to-write instruction followed by writing-strategy instruction, compared to a repeated reading-to-write instruction, with respect to the quality of written texts and procedural knowledge regarding reasoning about significance, reading, and writing. Students in the R&W condition first received a reading instruction in the form of a writing task followed by a writing-strategy instruction, and students in the R&R condition received two reading instructions in the form of a writing task.

Regarding the quality of written texts (historical discussion), we expected significant improvement from pretest to posttest in both conditions. Our results confirmed this expectation, which is in line with earlier research: Reading instruction has a positive effect on text quality (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000 ; Graham & Perin, 2007 ; Graham et al., 2018 ; van Driel et al., 2022 ; Wissinger et al., 2020 ). However, when a domain-specific reading instruction was followed by domain-specific writing-strategy instruction, students wrote higher scoring texts. In particular students scored significantly higher on text structure of the genre historical discussion. Based on the scores on the sub variables (Table 4 ), this might be explained in two ways. First, due to the instruction on structuring the text by writing an introduction, body and conclusion, students in the R&W condition may have written more complete texts (with a clearly distinguishable introduction, a body, and conclusion), compared to students in the R&R condition. This is an effect on a more generic aspect of text quality. Second, due to the instruction on how to include your position (claim) on the significance of the historical agent in the introduction, students in the R&W condition may have written better introductions. This is an effect on a more domain-specific aspect of text quality.

We did not find a significant difference between both conditions regarding the main category reasoning about significance. In both conditions we paid explicit attention to criteria of historical significance. However the writing instruction also focused on including historians’ perspectives and criteria of significance. That no significant differences were found could be related to the coding scheme that perhaps was not sensitive enough to catch differences in the use of language related to those criteria. In the writing instruction we addressed the use of language to describe the historical significance of a person. This was, however, not included in our coding scheme.

With respect to the acquisition of procedural knowledge regarding reading, writing, and reasoning about historical significance, students in both conditions improved significantly from pretest to posttest. Contrary to our expectations, however, the difference between both conditions was found in the amount of procedural knowledge regarding reasoning about historical significance and not (as we expected) regarding procedural knowledge of writing. Finally, we found a small but positive correlation between procedural knowledge and the quality of written texts, which has not always been found in prior research (van Drie et al., 2018 , van Drie et al. 2021 ).

Although a lot of research regarding the relationship between procedural knowledge and the quality of written texts exists in this field of research, our study differs from other studies cited. In contrast with previous research, our study contains two interventions sequentially. Perhaps we found a positive correlation because our study provided opportunities for students to forget and subsequently to reactivate and apply their procedural knowledge, which is associated with better learning (Bjork & Bjork, 2019 ). Although we expected to find differences between both conditions regarding procedural knowledge of writing, we did not. Perhaps more extended instruction about writing is needed. More research is also needed to gain a better understanding regarding the role of procedural knowledge.

We must take into account several limitations of this study. First, the last part of the intervention took place during the lockdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. For that reason, some intervention lessons took place in an online learning environment, so certain small group assignments were changed into individual assignments as well as two texts. One text was written after the second intervention, and the posttest was written in an online learning environment. Despite our efforts, it is not clear how this lockdown affected the outcomes of our study. It is reasonable to believe that the lockdown may have had a negative impact on the learning outcomes (Engzell et al., 2021 ). Second, we did not measure students’ historical background knowledge or interest in the chosen topics, which could have been of influence on the outcomes (e.g., Nye et al., 2018 ; O’Reilly et al., 2019 ; Tyner & Kabourek, 2020 ). Although we used the same task format and type of materials (background information and two contrasting historical accounts), the topic of the tests differed. Students could have different interest in and background knowledge of Constantine I and Cecil Rhodes, which might have influenced the outcomes Also, the historical period the agents lived in could differ in complexity.

In addition, all students belonged to the same school, followed the same curriculum, and all students were randomly assigned to a teaching group and condition. Therefore, we assumed that there were no differences between both conditions. Third, participating students came from one school in the Netherlands and were taught by one teacher (first author) in order to ensure that results stem from our intervention, but this means that we should be careful about generalizing the outcomes. Finally, bias may have arisen because one of the researchers, who is a history teacher at the school, taught all the lessons. However, we attempted to minimize this bias by detailed lesson plans, and according to the fidelity check, no deviations where found.

This study has some implications for future research. First, researchers in history education could compare—given the difference regarding procedural knowledge on reasoning about historical significance—the reading and writing instruction with the effects of a singular instruction about historical significance on writing. How do these kinds of instructions contribute to students’ knowledge of a specific genre? Second, future research also should take into account students’ background knowledge about and interest in the topic at hand, as well as the perceived complexity of the task.

Given students’ struggles with goal-orientated reading in the Netherlands as well as in other (western) countries (OECD, 2019 ), this study provides some implications on how to teach reading and writing in history classrooms, to which a limited number of teachers pay attention (Gillespie et al., 2014 ). The lesson units, developed for this study, could be used as examples of how to construct lessons in history education. The most important implication might be that teachers could demonstrate how historians use language, while constructing a convincing interpretation of the past, and could highlight the influence of the historical context on historical interpretations. In addition, teaching students how to apply domain-specific reading and writing strategies might enable them to develop understanding of historical accounts as contextualized perspectives on the past.

Although both of our instructions had different impacts, overall, we may conclude that reading instruction has a positive impact on the quality of written texts. However, if additional writing instruction is provided, then the quality of the written texts becomes even better. Reading instruction also helps students to acquire procedural knowledge regarding reading historical accounts, reasoning about historical significance, and writing argumentative texts about historical significance. Additional writing-strategy instruction is even more helpful.

Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2019). Forgetting as the friend of learning: Implications for teaching and self-regulated learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 43 , 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00001.2019

Article   Google Scholar  

Cercadillo, L. (2001). Significance in history: Students’ ideas in England and Spain. In A. Dickinson, P. Gordon, & P. Lee (Eds.), Raising standards in history (pp. 116–145). Education Woburn Press.

Google Scholar  

Cercadillo, L., Chapman, A., & Lee, P. (2017). Organizing the past: Historical accounts, significance and unknown ontologies. In M. Carretero, S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 529–552). Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Chapman, A. (2011). Historical Interpretations. In I. Davies (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 96–108). Routledge.

Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse. The language of time, cause and evaluation . London, England: Continuum.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Commissie voor Toetsing en Examens (CvTE). (2018). Syllabus centraal examen 2020. Geschiedenis HAVO. Utrecht: commissie voor Toetsing en Examens [Syllabus central exam 2020. History HAVO. Utrecht: Committee for Assessment and Examination].

Crowhurst, M. (1990). Reading/writing relationships: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Education/revue Canadienne De L’éducation, 15 , 155–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1495373

De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139

De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple sources in history: Effects of strategy instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35 , 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001

De La Paz, S., Wissinger, D. R., Gross, M., & Butler, C. (2022). Strategies that promote historical reasoning and contextualization: A pilot intervention with urban high school students. Reading and Writing, 35 , 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10183-0

De la Paz, S., Monte-Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., & Piantedosi, K. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.147

Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (17), e2022376118.

Fallace, T. D. (2007). Once more unto the breach: Trying to get preservice teachers to link historiographical knowledge to pedagogy. Theory & Research in Social Education, 35 (3), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2007.10473343

Fallace, T., & Neem, J. N. (2005). Historiographical thinking: Towards a new approach to preparing history teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 33 (3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2005.10473285

Fang, Z. (2016). Teaching close reading with complex texts across different content areas. Research in the Teaching of English, 51 (1), 106–116.

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5

Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers’ use of writing to support students’ learning: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27 (6), 1043–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8

Goldman, S. R., Greenleaf, C., Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M., Brown, W., Ko, M. L. M., Emig, J. M., George, M. A., Wallace, P., Blaum, D., & Britt, M. A. (2019). Explanatory modeling in science through text-based investigation: Testing the efficacy of the Project READI intervention approach. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (1), 1148–1216. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219831041

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 , 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88 (2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927

Gross, A. (2002). Testing the validity of a meta-reading model. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 2 (2), 177–178. https://doi.org/10.1891/194589502787383371

Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39 , 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5

Houwen, A., van Boxtel, C., & Holthuis, P. (2020). Dutch students’ understanding of the interpretative nature of textbooks when comparing two texts about a significant event in the development of democracy. History Education Research Journal , 17 (2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.14324/HERJ.17.2.06

Hunt, M. (2000). Teaching historical significance. In J. Arthur & R. Phillips (Eds.), Issues in history teaching (pp. 39–53). Routledge.

Innes, M. (2020). Dynamic literacies and democracy: A framework for historical literacy. In C. W. Berg & T. M. Christou (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of history and social studies education (pp. 597–620). Palgrave Macmillan.

Jouhar, M. R., & Rupley, W. H. (2021). The reading–writing connection based on independent reading and writing: A systematic review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37 (2), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1740632

Kincaid J. P., Fishburne R. P. Jr, Rogers R. L., & Chissom B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated readability index, Fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel.  Research branch Report pp. 8–75, Millington, TN: Naval technical training, U. S. Naval air station, Memphis, TN .  https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=istlibrary .

Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7 (3), 311–350. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.01

Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2 (1), 1–46.

Körber, A. (2015). Historical consciousness, historical competencies—and beyond? Some conceptual development within German history didactics. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:10811 .

Lévesque, S. (2008). Thinking historically . Toronto University Press.

Levine, S. (2014). Making interpretation visible with an affect-based strategy. Reading Research Quarterly, 49 , 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.71

Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (4), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.4810

NyeButt, B. S. M., Bradburn, J., & Prasad, J. (2018). Interests as predictors of performance: An omitted and underappreciated variable. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 108 , 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.08.003

O’Reilly, T., Wang, Z., & Sabatini, J. (2019). How much knowledge is too little? When a lack of knowledge becomes a barrier to comprehension. Psychological Science, 30 (9), 1344–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619862276

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results. Combined executive summaries, Vol. I, II, & III. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Combined_Executive_Summaries_PISA_2018.pdf .

Paul, H. (2017). What defines a professional historian? A historicizing model. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 11 , 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1163/18722636-12341322

Paul, H. (2019). The historians as a public moralist: On the Roman origins of a scholarly persona. History and Theory, 59 (2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.12115

Poitras, E. G., & Lajoie, S. P. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated learning: The cognitive and metacognitive activities involved in learning through historical inquiry. Metacognition Learning, 8 , 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9104-9

Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30 (1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.634081

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective . Lawrence Erlbaum.

Book   Google Scholar  

Schleppegrell, M., & de Oliveira, L. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (1), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.003

Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (1996). Writing performance and knowledge about writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models & methodology in writing research (pp. 87–107). Amsterdam University Press.

Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2012). The big six: Historical thinking concepts . Nelson.

Stoel, G. L., van Drie, J. P., & van Boxtel, C. A. M. (2017). The effects of explicit teaching of strategies, secondorder concepts, and epistemological underpinnings on students’ ability to reason causally in history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (3), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000143

Trapman, M., van Gelderen, A., van Steensel, R., van Schooten, E., & Hulstijn, J. (2014). Linguistic knowledge, fluency and meta-cognitive knowledge as components of reading comprehension in adolescent low achievers: Differences between monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 37 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01539.x

Tyner, A., & Kabourek, S. (2020) Social studies instruction and reading comprehension: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study . Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/resources/social-studies-instruction-and - reading-comprehension (2021).

van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., & van der Linden, J. L. (2006). Historical reasoning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 265–296). Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Drie, J. P., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Stam, B. (2013). Discussing historical significance in the classroom: “But why is this so important.” International Journal of historical learning, teaching and research, 12 (2), 146–168.

van Drie, J. P., Braaksma, M., & van Boxtel, C. (2015). Writing in history: Effects of writing instruction on historical reasoning and text quality. Journal of Writing Research , 7 (1), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.06

van Boxtel, C. A. M., & van Drie, J. P. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149–176). Wiley-Blackwell

van Drie, J. P., Janssen, T., & Groenendijk, T. (2018). Effects of writing instruction on adolescents’ knowledge of writing and text quality in history. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature , 18 (2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.03.08

van Drie, J., van Driel, J., & van Weijen, D. (2021). Developing students’ writing in History: Effects of a teacherdesigned domain-specific writing instruction. Journal of Writing Research , 13 (2), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.13.02.01

van Driel, J., van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2022). Writing about historical significance: The effects of a reading-to-write instruction. International Journal of Educational Research . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101924

van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.477

Wansink, B., Akkerman, S., Zuiker, I., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Where does teaching multiperspectivity in history education begin and end? An analysis of the uses of temporality. Theory and Research in Social Education, 46 (4), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2018.1480439

Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73

Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22 , 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80043-3

Wissinger, D. R., & De La Paz, S. (2016). Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ written historical arguments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8 (1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000043

Wissinger, D. R., De La Paz, S., & Jackson, C. (2020). The effects of historical reading and writing strategy instruction with fourth- through sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology., 113 (1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000463

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Johan van Driel, Jannet van Driel & Carla van Boxtel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan van Driel .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Columbus Day is celebrated on the second Monday in October in the United States. This day has been officially a national holiday since 1937. However, not all States celebrate this day. Some States find this day an insult to the descendants of the original inhabitants of the United States. The state of South Dakota celebrates this day but calls it “Native American Day.”

The US government wonders whether Columbus Day should be celebrated as a national

holiday. A historical committee has been set up to investigate this issue. The committee considers these questions:

How has the assigned significance to Columbus developed over time?

Should Columbus Day be celebrated as a national day or not?

In order to make a decision about Columbus Day, you as a historian are asked to answer these questions.

Write an essay to the committee in which you indicate to what extent Columbus is historically

important. Also pay attention to how thinking about Columbus has developed over time. Then give a reasoned opinion on whether Columbus Day should be celebrated as a national holiday or not.

Use the texts in which two historians assign significance to Columbus (Text 1 and 2) and a text with background information (background to the texts). Finally, you will find a brief biography about Columbus.

You can also use the information from the lessons. Write an argumentative text in which you answer the above questions. There is no prescribed length of the text. Attempt to write a text of at least 250 words. For this assignment you have one lesson.

Text structure

General writing, reasoning about significance.

Pre- and posttest procedural knowledge reading, reasoning about historical significance, and writing.

A good friend would really like to get a good grade for history. This friend asked you for help with an assignment. He/she must read a number of texts and write an essay based on these texts.

The assignment that your friend has to do is write an essay in which he or she explains how historians’ interpretation of this significant historical person has developed though time.

Write an email to this friend in which you give tips on how to read historical texts and how to write a letter in the context of this assignment.

Since 2015, there has been a discussion about the statue of a former student, Cecil Rhodes, which stands next to your university. You have asked a number of experts to investigate whether it is still appropriate for the statue of Rhodes to have a place at your university. I will also give my opinion on this. I do this on the basis of texts based on books written by historians Basil Williams (1867–1950) and Brian Roberts (1930–present).

British historian Basil Williams published his book Cecil Rhodes in 1920. In this book, Williams describes the life of Rhodes, and he wants to make clear that Rhodes has been of great significance for the growth of the British Empire. At the time this book was published, many Britons were very much influenced by nationalism; they felt their country had the right to serve over others. Williams mentions many good sides of Rhodes. That, despite setbacks, he was able to earn a lot of money. He also describes that, despite his lack of presence at political meetings, he still had the chance to become prime minister. He formed a cabinet aimed at serving England. Rhodes was always focused on the public interest when he made laws. Thus, Rhodes had great influence in his time. What is striking is that a bill that would allow men of all races to go to university (the bill failed to pass) earned him the nickname Friend of the Natives, but in order to allay political opposition he faced, he passed a law that curtailed the rights of the natives. He also had great influence after his death.

In short, Williams believes that Rhodes has served humanity. He still mentions the bad sides of Rhodes (fascinated by money and very cynical) but places this in the background by writing that he was of great importance for the peace in South Africa. Rhodes was able to connect people, and this makes him a great statesman.

Another British Historian, Brian Roberts, wrote a book in 1988 interpreting Rhodes’ actions. He calls this: Cecil Rhodes, flawed Colossus. Roberts describes how Rhodes made the choice to serve his country at a young age and that was the beginning of his career as an entrepreneur and politician. Roberts is very negative about Rhodes. He accuses Rhodes of illegally competing with his competitors, and I believe he has solid evidence to back this up. Roberts also gives plenty of good examples that Rhodes (almost) succeeded several times in introducing discriminatory legislation and that this shows his derogatory attitude towards the indigenous population. Roberts is very clear that Rhodes cannot be held directly responsible for Apartheid, but he is one of the preparers.

Roberts concludes that Rhodes has already played an important role as an entrepreneur and politician in the expansion of the British Empire. Rhodes was very popular in Africa, but his way of doing business came at the expense of the natives. It was important to him that the Glen Gray Act was passed because it facilitated the administration of South Africa. Roberts does not say that Rhodes was a convinced racist, but he partly blames him for the apartheid system by adopting the Glen Gray Act. This criticism fits the latter part of the twentieth century, when equality was very important.

Today there is more and more attention for figures like Rhodes. Heroes of History; but are they? I think Roberts is justified in questioning how great Rhodes was. So, I completely agree with his reasoning. Rhodes did a lot of good for the expansion of the British Empire, but much of that was done at the expense of the natives. Certainly, in today's world, where the relatives of, for example, the indigenous people of South Africa still suffer negative consequences of the past, where people like Rhodes have had a great influence, we—and certainly a leading educational institution like Oxford University—would not wish for people who have earned their stripes on the backs of others to be immortalized by means of a statue.

I hope that you can see that leaving the statue alone will only hurt people and that you will take the statue away. Cecile Rhodes does not deserve to be immortalized in this way.

I hope that you are able to make a good decision in this complex matter and that I have been able to contribute with my input.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

van Driel, J., van Driel, J. & van Boxtel, C. Writing about the significance of historical agents: the effects of reading and writing instruction. Read Writ (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10404-0

Download citation

Accepted : 16 December 2022

Published : 29 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10404-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Historical reasoning
• Writing instruction
• Reading instruction
• History education

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

Ask an NEH Expert: Historical Significance

Shatavia Elder, Vice President of Education at the  Atlanta History Center  (Atlanta, Georgia), offers advice on the importance of historical significance when writing about a topic, event, person, or era. The video includes materials available at the Atlanta History Center that show how researchers can evaluate historical significance across time.

This video is one in a series about historical research and writing developed through a collaboration between the National Endowment for the Humanities and National History Day.

These questions can be used before viewing the video to brainstorm ideas and review the concepts discussed in the interview, or after watching as a way to reflect on the interview.

1. What makes a person, event, or place historically significant?

2. What must historians and researchers consider when evaluating cause and effect?

3. To what extent can analyzing the outcomes of past events inform our understanding of contemporary events and issues?

1. What is historical significance? (2:27)

2. What are the differences between short-term and long-term consequences or impacts of historical events? Why do we need to consider both when studying history? (3:40)

3. What questions should researchers consider when analyzing the short-term impacts of historical events? (6:10)

4. What questions should researchers consider when analyzing the long-term impacts of historical events? (6:40)

5. What resources are available at the Atlanta History Center to help us study the short and long-term consequences of historical events? (7:17)

6. Why are conclusions crucial to research projects? (12:52)

7. How does a good conclusion enhance an argument? (14:17)

Related on EDSITEment

Ask an neh expert: wide research, ask an neh expert: multiple perspectives, preparing for national history day, the black archives of mid-america, chronicling america: history's first draft, evaluating eyewitness reports, ask an neh expert: validating sources, ask an neh expert: writing and editing.

• Welcome, Guest
•   Ideas and issues Featured resources News Special Offers   Home
• Working with TC²

Celebrating 25 years

Working with us, sessions and programs, ongoing support, lessons, units and courses, source materials, professional resources, sharing existing materials, commissioned resources, collaborative research.

Online resources to support elementary and secondary students in using historical thinking and inquiry

Teaching historical thinking.

The study of history comes alive and is more engaging and meaningful for students when they learn how to think like an historian.

Introducing the core concepts of historical thinking

Building on the work of Professor Peter Seixas of the University of British Columbia, TC² has developed engaging videos with accompanying lesson plans to introduce students to six historical thinking concepts that enable them to go beyond merely learning historical information to thinking deeply about history.

Historical significance

This video introduces students to the factors that determine what and who from the past should be remembered, researched, taught and learned (7:14 minutes)

Evidence and interpretation

This video introduces the validation, interpretation and use of primary and secondary sources of historical information in the construction of historical accounts and arguments (6:55 minutes)

Continuity and change

This video explains how lives and conditions are alike over periods of time and how they changed for people and societies that came before and after (6:19 minutes)

Cause and consequence

This video considers who or what influenced history and what were the repercussions of these changes (6:20 minutes)

Historical perspective

This video discusses the viewing of the past through the social, intellectual, emotional and ethical lenses of the time (5:53 minutes)

Ethical judgment

This video explores assessing the past and the implications of past actions in light of past and present norms about the appropriate treatment of others (6:53 minutes)

Resources to support historical thinking

Snapshots in Time: Significant Events in Canadian History Set 1

The Snapshots in Time Significant Events in Canadian History series consists of three sets of cards focusing on 150 significant events in the history of what became known as Canada from its pre-history to present day. This first set of 50 cards can be used as a game, learning tool, learning resource or assessment strategy to help your students investigate well-known historical events that are commonly included in grades 4-12 curricula across Canada. Each card focuses on a significant historical event in Canadian history and includes a title, a description of the event and an iconic image that provides clues about the event and when it occurred.

This set of cards was partially funded by the University of Alberta’s Endowment Fund for the Future: Support for the Advancement of Scholarship program.

This resource is also available in French as Clichés d'histoire . (Funded by le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada .)

Thinking historically with source documents

This six-page reference guide identifies freely available video, print and online resources that explain historical thinking, suggest how to teach it and offer sources of historical documents and images on topics in Canadian history. Also indicated at the end of this guide are exemplary resources available for purchase.

Teaching Historical Thinking (Revised and expanded edition)

This print resource elaborates on the six interrelated concepts central to students' ability to think about history. It offers specific suggestions for introducing the concepts to students and for applying them throughout the history curriculum.

Click for online resources that support use of the print publication

Exemplars in Historical Thinking: 20th Century Canada

This print resource contains teaching instructions, reproducible activity sheets and assessment support addressing a range of events and people in 20th century Canada. The nine critical challenges build upon the six concepts of historical thinking.

Doing historical inquiry

Students bring history to life and direct their own learning by doing history, particularly through rich, hands-on project-based inquiry. With the following resources, educators can support students to research their own inquiry, take intellectual risks and learn curricular content by constructing meaning rather than simply absorbing facts.

Inquiring into local and Indigenous histories

Tools for Thought lessons

Developed for grades 1-12 and available in French and English, these lessons are designed to nurture the student competencies required for historical thinking and inquiry. Each lesson introduces a thinking tool and a related historical thinking concept that can then be used to support curriculum-related learning activities and inquiry projects.

Using heritage fairs to support historical inquiry

Heritage fairs provide an excellent opportunity for project-based historical learning. Students research their own inquiry questions and use the media of their choice to present the results at a public exhibition.

Seven steps to a powerful Heritage Fair project

This online guide, developed by the BC Heritage Fairs Society in partnership with TC², helps teachers support students with their heritage fair projects. It offers suggestions for how to help students choose and refine a topic of personal and historical significance, dig deeply and critically into that topic, connect their findings with broader themes, social issues and “big ideas” in the curriculum and creatively share their conclusions in a public forum.

Enriching projects with historical thinking concepts

This Tips for Teachers document outlines the value of embedding historical thinking concepts in projects, and how specific concepts help guide more rigorous historical inquiry. Sample questions from actual heritage fair projects are provided to illustrate how each of the six historical thinking concepts can be embedded.

Tools to support historical inquiry

The following lesson plans from the Tools for Thought collection develop the techniques of effective historical research and inquiry. These resources, useful at both the elementary and secondary levels, include teacher notes, detailed instructions and relevant activity sheets.

The online and video resources that are part of Thinking about History are published with the support of the following groups:

The Critical Thinking Consortium

4th Floor, 1580 West Broadway Vancouver, BC V6J 5K8, Canada (604) 639-6325

• Shipping and returns
• Privacy policy
• Terms and conditions

The Role of Journal Writing in Historical Thinking

D. Antonio Cantu | Sep 1, 2000

"I think of writing as a way of seeing. It's a way of bringing out the specialness of ordinary things." —Laurence Yep

Nearly a decade ago, as a high-school history teacher, I was asked to participate in a "writing across the curriculum" grant. I entered the process quite confident in my ability to challenge my students through a variety of thinking and assessment activities that focused on the art of writing. Needless to say, I was very naïve. Once I came to this realization, I was ready to learn. Through my experience in this grant and my interaction with English and literature teachers, I adopted a number of new teaching strategies that focused on student writing.

The format with which I have had the most success is journal writing. For me, journal writing seems an ideal instructional tool for taking students to higher order cognitive learning levels and for achieving many of the affective learning goals I have identified as requisite to deeper understanding. I have also found journal writing to be a very effective means for integrating all of the elements of historical thinking into my curriculum. When I speak of historical thinking, I am referring to the definition outlined in the National Standards for History , which includes the following components:

Chronological Thinking

• Historical Comprehension
• Historical Analysis and Interpretation
• Historical Research Capabilities
• Historical Issues-Analysis and Decision-Making1

I never want to sacrifice content for process, and journal writing does not require that of those who choose to utilize it in the classroom. Another benefit of journal writing for me has been the tremendous flexibility inherent in its design. Journal writing activities can be assigned on a daily, weekly and/or semester basis and can be worked out in various formats: notebooks, index cards, typed documents, 3.5" computer disks, protected/secure web pages, and e-mail messages.

I am well aware that we are all instructional and curricular gatekeepers, and therefore not all teaching and learning activities will see the light of day in our classroom. I would have it no other way. As you examine the various forms of journal writing activities and implementation strategies, however, my hope is that all readers derive some benefit from this discussion, in accordance with the axiom, put forth by the Bradley Commission on History in Schools, that "variety is the spice of learning, just as it is of life."2

Integration Techniques

Journal writing may be integrated into the history curriculum in myriad ways, I will provide an overview framed by the National Standards definition.

1. Text Review Journal

The authors of the National Standards for History call chronological thinking the "heart of historical reasoning."3 One way for students to identify the role and importance of temporal order, historical causation, as well as change and continuity is for history instructors to build this mental scaffolding. The type of journal assignment that appears best suited for this task is a text review. Text review journal writing encourages students to use the chronological timeline in the textbook as a baseline for other primary and secondary source materials they encounter in their readings, research, and class lectures. Students should place the items they come across in these other sources on the timeline. This allows them to establish temporal order and to compare and contrast the varying historical accounts and interpretations they encounter during the course of their research and classroom discussion. For example, students can respond to journal prompts or assignments that ask them to

• identify the temporal order of the text's narrative;
• identify the interpretation of historical causation, events, and individuals in the text;
• compare historical interpretations in the text with those presented in class lectures/discussions;
• compare historical interpretations in the text with those presented in other course readings;
• compare historical interpretations in the text with those presented in research sources;
• place historical individuals, events, and movements encountered in other sources on the chronological timeline presented in the text's narrative; and
• discuss contradictions or inconsistencies between the text's chronological timeline and that of other sources.

2. Dialogue Journal

The Bradley Commission Report on History Teaching argues that one of history's "habits of the mind" is for students to develop an understanding of the "significance of the past to their own lives, both private and public, and to their society." 4 For this to occur, they must develop a degree of historical comprehension necessary to appreciate historical perspectives and avoid present-mindedness. To achieve this goal students must be provided with opportunities to discuss historical issues and general learning concerns. As we all know, some students utilize office hours, those moments before and after class, as well as voice, electronic, and snail mail to address these issues and concerns. Most, however, do not. Dialogue journal writing provides a medium for discussing these issues in a manner integrated into the curriculum. Students might be asked to

• note general observations about course material;
• make suggestions or recommendations that might enhance student understanding;
• identify "lessons learned" thus far, including application to their own life and present society;
• list those lessons or topics they would like to learn more about;
• discuss individual learning progress, both positive and negative features;
• identify learning obstacles, including areas of concern, confusion or misunderstanding; and
• propose possible courses of action to overcome these barriers to learning and understanding.

3. Primary Document Analysis Journal

Analysis, the authors of the National Standards for History argue, "obliges the student to assess the evidence on which the historian has drawn and determine the soundness of interpretations created from that evidence." 5 Such analysis and interpretation is possible only when students are allowed the opportunity to analyze, evaluate, compare, and contrast numerous primary source materials. As noted by some of the authors of the National Standards for History , "innumerable, and memorable, insights are to be gained from longer, closer looks at selected episodes, and all the more so by the deft use of primary sources." 6 Journal writing provides students with a means for recording their observations and conclusions in a comprehensive and systematic manner, thereby bringing a greater degree of consistency and authenticity to the learning process. For example, in their primary document analysis journals, students may be asked to:

• identify the historical context in which the document was written;
• discuss the attitudes, beliefs, and values which are held by the author(s) of the document;
• determine the ideas, principles, beliefs, and values that are reflected in the document;
• identify the impact and legacy of the document, in particular causal relationship with other events or documents;
• compare and contrast historians' interpretations, similar documents, and other historical perspectives; and
• evaluate the role of the document in our nation's history.

4. Research Journal

The authors of the National Standards for History best summarize the sentiments of most history educators by noting that, "perhaps no aspect of historical thinking is as exciting to students or as productive of their growth in historical thinking as 'doing history'." 7 As with the other historical thinking skills, historical inquiry can also benefit from student journal writing, though in a much different manner. Students can benefit at every step of the inquiry process by maintaining a companion research journal, to record their thought and decision making processes. A research journal provides students with a designated space to

• formulate historical questions and a thesis statement;
• list primary and secondary historical data sources;
• evaluate historical source materials; and
• record researcher's reflective thoughts and observations throughout the research process.

5. Classroom Discussion Journal

One of the most engaging forms of journal writing is that which literally takes place in the classroom. When integrated into the history curriculum, classroom discussion journals have the potential to develop what certain architects of the National Standards for History have referred to as "perhaps the surest path to engagement and thereby to acquiring other habits of critical thought and perspective," historical empathy. 8 Well-structured journal writing prompts can spark the type of thought and reflection that allows students to develop both a deeper understanding and historical empathy. Journal writing activities may be introduced at various strategic points in the classroom discussion, including prior to instruction, as a transition technique, to check for student understanding, or as a summary activity. These journal prompts may also be designed to teach a number of historical facts, concepts, themes, or issues, as well as to facilitate the development of a variety of historical thinking skills. For example, classroom journal writing can encourage students to

• identify salient issues relevant to understanding of historical events and movements;
• relate these historical issues to current societal concerns;
• discuss the problems and dilemmas which confronted individuals in history;
• discuss the role of historical context and antecedent circumstances;
• determine the alternative courses of action available to individuals during specific events in history;
• identify the beliefs, attitudes, and values that played a role in the decision making process of individuals in history; and
• evaluate decisions made by individuals in history.

I am well aware there are no panaceas in education. I also recognize, though, that the educational pendulum has a propensity to swing with more ease, velocity, and stride than any other profession, in search of one. What I can attest to, with certainty, is that journal writing has helped my students gain deeper historical understanding and provided them an opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency in the essential skills that comprise historical thinking. While journal writing represents but one pedagogical tool or means to assist in achieving this goal, it is one I recommend.

1. National Center for History in the Schools, National Standards for History: Basic Edition (Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools, 1996).

2. Bradley Commission on History in Schools, Building a History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools (Westlake, Ohio: National Council for History Education, 1995), 24.

3.  National Standards for History , 62.

4. Paul Gagnon and the Bradley Commission on History in Schools, eds., Historical Literacy: The Case for History in American Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991), 25.

5.  National Standards for History , 65.

6. Charlotte Crabtree et al., eds., Lessons From History: Essential Understandings and Historical Perspectives Students Should Acquire (Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools, 1992), 18.

7.  National Standards for History , 67.

8. Charlotte Crabtree et al., 153.

9. Bradley Commission on History in Schools, 24.

D. Antonio Cantu is assistant professor of history at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, where he also serves as editor of the International Journal of Social Education.

Tags: Teaching Resources and Strategies

The American Historical Association welcomes comments in the discussion area below, at AHA Communities , and in letters to the editor . Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

In This Section