|
|
Secondary teaching journals have given much attention to the use of
primary sources in the teaching of history. Many articles and
lesson plans implicitly point out what Parry and Strenski explicitly cited
as being the central premise of using primary sources: an emphasis by historians
on the use of higher-ordered critical thinking skills (1). The use
of historical documents and the processes of decoding, analyzing and interpreting
them has been reinforced by various simplified models (2). Davidson
and Lytle illustrate a systematic process by which students interpret and
evaluate historical evidence (3). Certainly the emphasis on higher-ordered
thinking skills should dispel fears among restructuring reformists who
believe history teachers rarely instruct above 1.0 on Bloom’s taxonomy.
Yet, users and advocates of historical documents have left some unfinished
curricular business: accountability. First, we hope that the critical
thinking skills transfer to the next series of historical documents.
But our evaluation of student performance is rather myopic. We do
posit some evaluation to determine whether students can analyze a set of
historical documents. We require, for example, students to answer
a series of questions based upon a source or to write an essay detailing
the results of their historical analysis, but we really don’t know whether
students can apply the historical skills to a new or novel set of historical
documents. In short, we need some systematic method to observe the
progress of the development of skills.
Second, using historical documents has inherent pitfalls because learning
and evaluation are still teacher-directed, not student-directed.
The teacher directs the student to a historical problem and to the historical
documents and assigns a formative student product. If the intent is to
teach secondary students at least some of the historian’s critical thinking
skills, then we must begin to ask students to demonstrate a final student-directed
product in which the student poses the problem, searches for the historical
documents, and provides the interpretation of the past. The recent
nomenclature for such a final test is “authentic evaluation,” but in the
past years our students have simply referred to it as building their own
Readings
Text (4).
Simply put, the Readings Text (RT) is a series of primary documents,
identified and selected by the student(s), which addresses a recent historical
issue or question. The end product is not the typical research paper
or History Day project. It is, rather, a documentary reader of recent
U.S. history or contemporary U.S. affairs. These document-evaluations
resemble chapters one might find in such reading texts as American Issues,
The American Record, or The American Spirit (5). The RT has been
developed as a “final examination” based upon four assumptions:
-
Teaching history through the use of historical documents is desirable and
is preferable to other pedagogical methods.
-
The RT is an exhibition which reflects a process of thinking: identifying,
comprehending, judging and evaluating primary sources.
-
The RT possesses observable traits which teachers can evaluate to ascertain
a degree of student success in working with historical documents.
Therefore, the RT represents a sum-mative evaluation.
-
The RT is student-directed; teacher direction is limited to advising and
guiding, rather than providing specific information.
Of course, all assumptions rest upon a view of history which requires that
it be studied thematically, not as a mere collection of facts and events.
The use of primary documents allows students to draw conclusions and interpretations
of the past. Throughout a history course, students are able to place
facts and events into a thematic context, one which they have constructed
from primary documents. But because routine teacher tests, as well
as standardized and textbook tests, emphasize the factual or discrete response
(6), history teachers face an incongruity between what they teach and what
they test. The RT is an alternative—a genuinely authentic measure
of what we expect history students do.
The process of measuring and evaluating the RT is divided into three
broad tasks:
-
the selection of a significant historical theme, generalization or
interpretation and its application to recent U.S. history or contemporary
affairs;
-
the development of key questions and the selection of primary sources which
address an issue or problem; and
-
the writing of a document-driven, interpretative essay addressing the issues
and questions posed by the study. The students’ responsibilities
and the teacher’s evaluative tasks are summarized in the box on this page.
These are distributed to students in order to specify the criteria upon
which the evaluation will be determined.
Selecting the Historical Problem
Selecting the topic for the RT immediately presents two problems.
First, the students are required to pull together their knowledge of historical
content and to identify a historical theme or interpretation. Some
of the themes identified by students as a result of year-long studies have
included:
-
the conflict and tensions created by special interest groups which directly
challenge the values and mores of an accepted
and established group (majority);
-
the growth of presidential power and the subsequent problems and conflicts
of executive authority;
-
the conflicts and/or consensus between big business and labor organizations;
-
the cost of the anti-communist commitment in foreign affairs;
-
the successes and/or failures of achieving equality for minority groups;
and
-
the growth of the federal government’s responsibilities and powers
to insure the welfare of the individual.
Still others may identify a historical point of view, the authenticity
and reliability of which is to be evaluated. For example, the
late sixties and seventies have been characterized by some as a period
of great political crises, destroying the unity and purpose of the American
people (7). But, whether students identify a theme or a historical
interpretation, their primary work is to select an issue that possesses
a historical linkage from past to present.
The second student problem is to assess the validity or the applicability
of the theme or generalization to recent contemporary history (that is,
since 1960). Students formulate key conceptual questions which focus
their historical research. The questions themselves are dependent upon
the theme or historical issues selected. More important, the questions
suggest controversy and complexity, where several answers might be deduced;
a single answer is viewed as an oversimplification. The following
are examples of some historical topics and key questions developed by students:
-
How have demographic changes since 1970 caused ethnic conflict?
-
To what extent did Watergate influence the practice of politics in the
U.S.?
-
What have been the accomplishments of the U.S. labor movement since 1970?
-
What were the goals of the United States in the Vietnam War?
-
Are the goals of African-Americans today significantly different from those
of the 1960s?
-
To what extent did the “Great Society” perpetuate the idea of the welfare
state?
Admittedly and with purpose, the RT limits the historical study to a period
of time that some historians might rightfully question as being history.
Despite the debate as to when history ends and journalism begins, the task
of the students is to determine how an issue, during a period of time (e.g.,
the space debate in the seventies, the successes and failures of Gerald
Ford’s Administration, Vietnam during the sixties), demonstrates a continuity
or break with earlier historical themes or ideas. The RT’s focus
on current history is also a legitimate study in that students must search
out and edit primary documents to demonstrate the validity or continuity
of ideas. Availability of documents is obviously increased since
many secondary school libraries and public libraries are inventoried with
sources of the past thirty years. Finally, given the textbook industry’s
tendency to de-emphasize the coverage of recent U.S. history (8), the RT
solves a perennial and vexing problem of how best to approach recent U.S.
history.
Selecting Historical Documents
The second major component of the RT exhibition and the most time consuming
is the research and selection of primary documents. The students look for
evidence (ie, primary sources) that will specifically address their topics
and answer their questions. While the selection of
the documents still remains student-directed, teachers can introduce pedagogical
strategies that can increase the complexity of the research.
For example, in the selection of documents, students may be required to
include one or more of the following:
-
a table or graph;
-
an editorial cartoon, opinion editorial, letter to a local newspaper;
-
local input from town meetings, records of public forums;
-
an interview between students and a contemporary of the period;
-
a film, radio, television broadcast or film;
-
periodical sources such as newspapers, journals, magazines;
-
fiction works of the period (best seller list of novels, videotapes); or
-
photographs, slides, pictures, art reprints, government publications of
data, statistics, and maps.
Another limitation is the number of documents available and their length.
The number and length of documents to be used can be determined by the
teacher. The purpose of the limitations is to force the student to
carefully evaluate and edit primary sources so that they succinctly address
the topic. An example of an edited primary document, which attempts
to address the problem of U.S. goals in Vietnam in the sixties, is provided
above. The central student and teacher evaluations of the documents
rest upon three criteria:
-
Does the RT present documents which reveal more than one point of view
(i.e., show contradiction, complexities or bias)?
-
Do the documents present answers to the questions posed?
-
Does the RT possess a variety of historical documents?
The finished research consists of not more than fifteen edited primary
sources, citing bibliographic information. Each document is briefly
introduced, summarizing how the document is related to the overall historical
problem. For example, one student group, investigating the motives
for U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, cited a 1960 speech made by Lyndon
Johnson in which he defended America’s role in Vietnam. They introduced
the document as follows:
Escalation of the Vietnam War was dramatic during Lyndon John-son’s
administration. For Johnson, the U.S. role in Vietnam was noble and
moral. Vietnam epitomized the goal of our attempts to create a stable
world order.
The Summary Essay
The last phase of the RT project requires students to write an interpretative
essay based on their selected documents. Here the task is almost
anticlimactic. The essay is to be document dependent. Answers
to their questions are to be derived from the documents which the
students have selected. Given that the RT documents may possess bias,
the students’ narrative or history should reflect a unique point
of view.
The RT as a Final Evaluation
The purpose of the RT project is to determine the ability of students to
use primary sources to understand the past. An implicit assumption
is that using primary documents allows students to decode historical artifacts
and to draw their own con-clusions about a historical occurrence, event,
issue, debate, idea, or controversy. The RT was designed so that
teachers can measure and evaluate student progress in acquiring the historian’s
skills. The RT would also serve well for a student’s self-evaluation,
especially for those who developed portfolios throughout the school year.
Additionally, the RT is useful as a tool for teaching and exhibiting cooperative
learning. But most significantly, the RT requires the students to
do the historian’s work: to select the historical topic, to ask significant
questions, to research and edit primary documents, and to write an interpretative
essay. Using recent U.S. history as the content vehicle, history
teachers can move well beyond the usual objective type examinations and
“question-answer” work sheets to authentic evaluations.
A SUMMARY OF THE
READINGS TEXT TASK
AN AUTHENTIC EVALUATION
Selects Historical Topic/Problem
1. Identifies historical theme, generalization, interpretation
from previous course work.
2. Selects recent U.S. topic or problem and applies historical
theme. Formulates key conceptual questions.
Selects Primary Sources
1. Sources pose answers to questions.
2. Sources are varied.
3. Sources reveal a point of view.
4. Sources are summarized and placed in historical context.
Model Narrative
1. Narrative addresses historical question posed.
2. Narrative is based on documents selected.
3. Narrative suggests historical complexities and contradictions.
4. Narrative demonstrates understanding of historical themes
and interpretations.
EXAMPLE OF AN EDITED PRIMARY DOCUMENT
STUDENT QUESTION:
WHAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM?
“. . . We must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as
we wish.
The world as it is in Asia is not a serene or peaceful place.
The first reality is that North Viet-Nam has attacked the independent
nation of South Viet-Nam. Its object is total conquest.
Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?
We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every
American President has offered support to the people of South Viet-Nam.
We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over
many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend
its independence.
And I intend to keep that promise. . . .
There are those who wonder why we have a responsibility there.
Well, we have it there for the same reason that we have a responsibility
for the defense of Europe. World War II was fought in both Europe
and Asia and when it ended we found ourselves with continued responsibility
for the defense of freedom.
Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam and its freedom
from attack. We want nothing for ourselves—only that the people of
South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.”
President Lyndon B. Johnson
Speech at Johns Hopkins University
7 April 1965
Endnotes
-
Mary Elizabeth Parry and Ellen Strenski, “A Student Guide To Reading Historical
Documents,” Social Education 48 (January 1984): 58-59.
-
Indiana Historical Bureau, “Indiana History Day Pointers.” OAH Magazine
of History 5 (Summer 1990): 52-57.
-
James W. Davidson and Mark H. Lytle, After the Fact: The Art of Historical
Detection (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986).
-
Grant Wiggins, “Teaching to the (Authentic) Test,” Educational
Leadership 7 (April 1989) and Walter C. Parker, Renewing the Social
Studies Curriculum (Alexandria, Va.: Association for the Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1991).
-
Charles M. Dollar and Gary W. Reichard, American Issues: A Documentary
Reader (New York: Random House, 1988); William Graebner and Leonard
Richards, The American Record (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982);
and Thomas A. Bailey and David M. Kennedy. The American Spirit
(Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1984).
-
David Jenness, Making Sense of Social Studies (New York: MacMillan
Publishing Company, 1990).
-
Jonathan Schell, The Time of Illusion (New York: Vintage Books,
1975).
-
Jenness, Making Sense of Social Studies, 275.
Francis C. McMann is chair of the History and Social Studies Department
at Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Carolyn Jepsen McMann is History and Social Studies Instructor at
Metro Alternative High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. |
