Index

Keith C. Barton

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Keith C. Barton

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Author/s:

Keith C. Barton (Indiana University) Keywords History Social Studies Secondary School Literacy Writing can be a powerful tool for learning in the Humanities. When used well, it helps students clarify their thoughts in a quick, simple way, and it provides teachers with ready insight into how students are making sense of content.  Writing is also a […]

Keith C. Barton (Indiana University)

Keywords
History
Social Studies
Secondary School
Literacy

Writing can be a powerful tool for learning in the Humanities. When used well, it helps students clarify their thoughts in a quick, simple way, and it provides teachers with ready insight into how students are making sense of content.  Writing is also a natural way to engage students who have a wide range of achievement levels, for it allows different students to participate in the same activity in different ways. Perhaps most importantly, it places control of learning in the hands of students themselves, so that they have a chance to construct their own ideas instead of simply reproducing what they encounter from teachers, texts, or other sources. When used this way, most students write easily and naturally.

That may not sound like a very familiar description of writing. Both students and teachers are more likely to think of writing as a difficult and time-consuming process, one that sometimes seems to require impossibly high standards. Many may associate it with drudgery, boredom, and the regurgitation of content that they barely understand. But it does not have to be that way. Developing a more positive and productive attitude toward writing requires thinking more carefully about its role in the learning process.

The Role of Writing in Learning
Writing is one of the most common tasks required of students at school, but it rarely lives up to its potential as a tool for learning. Most often, we ask students to write for one of two reasons: (1) As a summative assessment. We often ask students to write examinations, essays, or other somewhat lengthy compositions as a way of finding out how well they have learned what we intended. Here, writing is a product of learning. (2) As a skill to be learned. In language classes, we teach students the mechanics of composition, and in content courses, we teach them to apply that to particular subjects—by writing a historical essay, for example. Here, writing is the object of learning.

Both of these are important reasons for having students write, but neither of them is centrally concerned with helping students learn content; they are more like by-products or auxiliaries of Humanities content. By placing writing closer to the center of the learning, though, we can make it both more natural and more effective. Rather than only being the product or the object of learning, writing should also be part of the process of learning.

This means giving students the chance to write quickly and informally as they are learning, or immediately after a lesson. It does not involve lengthy compositions, nor does it focus on correct spelling and punctuation. (Think of it as more like email—correct spelling and punctuation are nice, but we do not tell people we will not read their emails if they are not perfect.) If students get too bogged down in the mechanics of writing, the activity will cease to serve its purpose. The purpose of this kind of writing is for students to think about the information they have encountered, and to make it their own through the activity of writing (Britton, 1970; Langer & Applebee, 1987; Smith & Wilhelm, 2010). This is what constructivism is all about—students constructing knowledge by doing something with content. When students react to information through an activity, they construct their own understanding of it. Otherwise they are just memorizing … or forgetting.

Download Full Article

Related Teaching Materials

Attachment Size
 Magic Words 20.57 KB
Author/s:

Barton, Keith C. (Indiana University) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School pedagogy Discussion can be a valuable element of history classrooms, and assessing participation can provide an important means of improving students’ engagement in this valuable form of communication. Doing so requires that teachers identify the specific skills of historical discussion that they want students to […]

Barton, Keith C. (Indiana University)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
pedagogy

Discussion can be a valuable element of history classrooms, and assessing participation can provide an important means of improving students’ engagement in this valuable form of communication. Doing so requires that teachers identify the specific skills of historical discussion that they want students to master; teach those skills systematically; and develop practical procedures for collecting information on students’ participation. This article suggests guidelines for teachers to consider in preparing for each of these tasks.

For most history teachers (and others in the humanities), classroom discussion is an inherently appealing practice. After all, professional historians discuss their work with each other—and with the public—all the time, so introducing students to this part of the discipline seems an authentic way to move beyond the traditional tests and essays found in most history classrooms. In addition, it seems self-evident that discussion can increase students’ engagement, sharpen their intellects, develop their verbal skills, and model how to take part in civil discourse with those whose ideas differ from their own. Notably, an important predictor of students’ commitment to democratic values is the extent to which they have experienced an “open” classroom climate in school (reviewed in Knowles & McCafferty-Wright, 2015), and one of the characteristics of such classrooms is that they encourage students to engage in a relatively free exchange of ideas through discussion of social and political issues (which often overlap with history). With all these reasons in its favor, most history teachers these days look for opportunities to regularly engage students in classroom discussion.

Assessing those discussions, however, is another matter. Many teachers hesitate to formally evaluate students’ participation in discussion, for a number of related reasons (Hess, 2002). First, some teachers feel—not without reason—that holding students accountable for the quality of their discussion may inhibit participation. Students may be so afraid of making a mistake, that is, and so they minimize their engagement for fear of losing credit. Conversely, teachers may worry that students will be so focused on getting a good grade that it will render discussion inauthentic: Students may simply follow scoring guidelines without regard to their true thoughts on the topic, or without concern for the inherent benefits of sustained intellectual discourse. And finally, teachers may despair at the possibility of creating an assessment measure that adequately captures the nature of historical discussion. They may feel less qualified to evaluate a discussion than the more familiar format of an essay, for example, or they may feel that forms of discussion are so diverse—even idiosyncratic—that there is no way to create a common rubric that would apply to each discussion and each student.

These are valid concerns, and teachers must grapple with them. Nonetheless, there are good arguments that the value of assessing classroom discussion outweighs such challenges. Perhaps the most important is that we should assess students on those things we consider important. With presentations and written work, we do not assess students on their memory of historical trivia, but on their ability to construct a well-reasoned argument and communicate it clearly; we therefore send a clear signal that reasoning and communication is more important than remembering trivia. If we truly believe that historical discussion is important, then we should signal that through our assessment practices (Hess, 2002). Otherwise, students may come to regard discussion as a distraction from the “true” historical work of writing—a perspective that is already reinforced by the essay-focused nature of external examinations.

Download Full Article

Author/s:

Barton, Keith C.  (Indiana University) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Historical Sources Abstract Historical sources are a common feature of history classrooms, but the purpose of using them is not always clear,  and as a result, instructional activities with sources may not be as effective or meaningful as they should be. This lack of […]

Barton, Keith C.  (Indiana University)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Historical Sources

Abstract
Historical sources are a common feature of history classrooms, but the purpose of using them is not always clear,  and as a result, instructional activities with sources may not be as effective or meaningful as they should be. This lack of clarity stems in part from the fact that there are four distinctly different reasons for using sources, and each carries its own implications for classroom practice. These purposes are 1) illustration and motivation; 2) evidence for historical inquiry;  3) visual or textual interpretation; 4) source analysis. By reflecting on how each of these purposes can play a role in the classroom, which kinds of sources are appropriate for each, and where they fit into an overall sequence of instruction, teachers can ensure that their use of sources deepens and extends students’ historical understanding.

All history teachers know they should be using original historical sources—often misleadingly referred to as “primary sources”—but sometimes they are less clear on the purpose of using them. Students encounter original historical sources in textbooks and accompanying exercises, and they may be required to analyze them as part of examinations. But these encounters are not enough to communicate the purpose of including sources in the curriculum, particularly given that they are often difficult to read and understand. In order to have educational value, teachers need to think carefully about why original historical sources are important, and how their purpose affects their use in the classroom.

Perhaps the lack of clarity about sources stems in part from the fact that there is no single reason for including them, and thus no “right” way of have students engage with them. Rather, there are four distinct purposes for using original historical sources, and each carries its own implications for educators. It is important to think through how these purposes differ and what their role might be in the history classroom.

Download Full Article

Scroll to Top