The present study explores secondary school history teachers’ knowledge of inquiry methods. To do so, a process model, outlining five core cognitive processes of inquiry in the history classroom, was developed based on a review of the literature. This process model was then used to analyze think-aloud protocols of 20 teachers’ reasoning during an inquiry task. It was found that less than half of the teachers used all cognitive processes during the inquiry. Based on the results, a distinction can be made between an integral, fragmentary, and cursory approach to inquiry. Further analysis suggests that there exists no clear pattern in the relation between teachers’ beliefs about the subject of history and their approach to inquiry. The implications for teacher training are discussed and outline how the process model could serve as an instructional tool that can contribute to a comprehensive training program for history teachers.
AndersonJ. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BainR.MirelJ. (2006). Setting up camp at the great instructional divide: Educating beginning history teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 212-219.
3.
BanerjeeM.CapozzoliM.McSweeneyL.SinhaD. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3-23.
4.
BartonK.LevstikL. (2003). Why don’t more history teachers engage students in interpretation?Social Education, 67(6), 358-361.
5.
BellT.UrhahneD.SchanzeS.PloetznerR. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349-377.
6.
BohanC. H.DavisO. L. (1998). Historical constructions: How social studies student teachers’ historical thinking is reflected in their writing of history. Theory & Research in Social Education, 26(2), 173-197.
7.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
8.
DavisE. A.KrajcikJ. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
9.
DeLaPazS.FeltonM. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 174-192.
10.
De WeverB.VandepitteP.JadoulleJ.-L. (2011). Historical education and didactics of history in Belgium. In ErdmannE.HasbergW. (Eds.), Facing, mapping, bridging diversity: Foundation of a European discourse on history education (pp. 49-50). Schwalbach, Germany: Wochenschau Verlag.
11.
DobsonR. B. (1970). The peasants’ revolt of 1381. London, England: Macmillan.
12.
DyerC. (1994). Everyday life in medieval England. London, England: Hambledon Press.
13.
EricssonK.SimonH. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Gess-NewsomeJ.LedermanN. G. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on education. In Gess-NewsomeJ.LedermanN. (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 51-94). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15.
HicksD.DoolittleP. E.EwingT. (2004). The SCIM-C strategy: Expert historians, historical inquiry, and multimedia. Social Education, 68(3), 221-225.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.DuncanR. G.ChinnC. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
18.
JosephB. D.JandaR. D. (2004). The handbook of historical linguistics. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
19.
KuuselaH.PaulP. (2000). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 387-404.
20.
LavilleC. (2004). Historical consciousness and historical education: What to expect from the first to the second. In SeixasP. (Ed.), Theorizing historical consciousness (pp. 165-182). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
21.
LeeP. J.AshbyR. (2000). Progression in historical understanding among students age 7-14. In StearnsP.N.SeixasP.WineburgS. (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history (pp. 199-222). New York: New York University Press.
22.
LevyB. L. M.ThomasE. E.DragoK.RexL. A. (2013). Examining studies of inquiry-based Learning in three fields of education: Sparking generative conversation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 387-408.
23.
MaggioniL.VanSledrightB.ReddyK. (2009, August). Epistemic talk in history. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
24.
MartinD.Monte-SanoC. (2008). Inquiry, controversy, and ambiguous texts: Learning to teach for historical thinking. In WarrenW. J.CantuA. D. (Eds.), History education 101: The past, present, and future of teacher preparation (pp. 167-186). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
25.
McDiarmidG. W. (1994). Understanding history for teaching: A study of the historical understanding of prospective teachers. In CarreteroM.VossJ. F. (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 159-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
27.
Monte-SanoC. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539-568.
28.
Monte-SanoC. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2), 212-249.
29.
Monte-SanoC.BudanoC. (2013). Developing and enacting pedagogical content knowledge for teaching history: An exploration of two novice teachers’ growth over three years. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 171-211.
30.
NeuendorfK. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. London, England: SAGE.
31.
PedasteM.MäeotsM.SiimanL. A.de JongT.van RiesenS. A. N.KampE. T.. . . TsourlidakiE. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14(1), 47-61.
32.
PerfettiC. A.BrittM. A.RouetJ.-F.GeorgiM. C.MasonR. A. (1994). How students use texts to learn and reason about historical uncertainty. In CarreteroM.VossJ. F. (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 257-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
PoitrasE. G.LajoieS. P. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated learning: The cognitive and metacognitive activities involved in learning through historical inquiry. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 213-234.
34.
ReismanA. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86-112.
35.
RiffeD.LacyS.FicoF. G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A.MasonR. A.PerfettiC. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478-493.
37.
StearnsP. (2000). Introduction. In StearnsP.SeixasP.WineburgS. (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 1-14). New York: New York University Press.
38.
StrijbosJ.-W.MartensR. L.PrinsF. J.JochemsW. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about?Computers & Education, 46(1), 29-48.
39.
van DrieJ.van BoxtelC. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87-110.
40.
Van SomerenM. W.BarnardY. F.SandbergJ. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London, England: Academic Press.
41.
VoetM.De WeverB. (2016). History teachers’ conceptions of inquiry-based learning, beliefs about the nature of history, and their relation to the classroom context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55(1), 57-67.
42.
WileyJ.VossJ. F. (1996). The effects of “playing historian” on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63-72.
43.
WilschutA. H. J. (2010). History at the mercy of politicians and ideologies: Germany, England, and the Netherlands in the 19th and 20th centuries. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(5), 693-723.
44.
WilsonS. M.WineburgS. S. (1993). Wrinkles in time and place: Using performance assessments to understand the knowledge of history teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 729-769.
45.
WineburgS. (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.
46.
WineburgS. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In LeinhardtG.BeckI. L.StaintonC. (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
WineburgS. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319-346.
48.
YeagerE. A.DavisO. L. J. (1996). Classroom teachers thinking about historical texts: An exploratory study. Theory & Research in Social Education, 24(2), 146-166.
49.
YilmazK. (2010). Social studies teachers “conceptions of history: Calling on historiography.”Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 37-41.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
