Learning to Teach Argumentative Historical Writing by Analyzing Student Work

In this paper, we report on our own modest professional development efforts that accompanied a U.S. history curriculum intervention project for 8 graders. We identify one specific studentlearning goal located at the intersection of historical thinking and literacy: the disciplinary use of evidence in writing historical argument. In recognition of the challenges associated with such a goal, we created a one-year professional development experience to support teachers’ understanding of the intended outcomes and facility with the curriculum. The professional development course aimed to develop teachers’ conceptual understandings of history, historical thinking and writing, and student learning. We offered opportunities to analyze students’ essays and to practice specific strategies that promote historical thinking and writing. We share what teachers noticed in their students’ writing over the course of one year, including their increased attention to features of historical thinking and writing, to the quality of students’ work, and identification of students’ needs. Teachers had more difficulty engaging with students’ evaluations of evidence and clarifying next steps they could take to support students’ learning. We use these analyses to reflect on teachers’ understandings and consider how we might best prepare teachers to teach historical thinking and writing in the future. Learning to Teach Argumentative Historical Writing, 1 DRAFT Learning to Teach Argumentative Historical Writing by Analyzing Student Work In the past thirty years, researchers and educators have laid the groundwork for an emphasis on historical thinking in history classrooms (e.g., Bain, 2005; Lee & Dickinson, 1984; Seixas, 2009; Wineburg, 1991). This emphasis on disciplinary thinking has become embedded within efforts to develop students’ reading and writing skills as a key pathway towards developing adolescent literacy (cf. Moje, 2008). In the U.S., the Common Core State Standards have been adopted by most states and integrate historical ways of thinking with literacy goals. Contrary to popular thought, research has demonstrated that such goals are attainable for a wide range of students, including students as young as 5 grade (VanSledright, 2002), students with disabilities (De La Paz, 2005; MacArthur, Ferretti, & Okolo, 2001) and English learners (Zwiers, 2006). But such goals are not easy to attain. Students do not naturally tend to think like historians (Wineburg, 1991). In reading historical texts, they often focus on the literal meaning of documents and miss intertextual reading strategies that would promote interpretive work (Afflerbach & VanSledright, 2001; Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996). Nor do students tend to write as historians do; in one study, students tended to list and arrange facts than analyze information (Greene, 2001). Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the U.S. highlight additional challenges. Only 2% of the adolescents tested in writing could claim a position and consistently support it with well-chosen reasons and examples, or extend the main idea in an essay (NCES, 2003). The 2005 RAND Report also highlights the low proficiency rates in NAEP writing results, and notes the wide disparity among Learning to Teach Argumentative Historical Writing, 2 DRAFT socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups (McCombs, Kirby, Barney, Darilek, & Magee, 2005). The majority of adolescents tested in the U.S. may be able to read and comprehend the literal meaning of documents or claim a position in writing, but they are unable to consistently support arguments with evidence. Yet, with instruction that emphasizes historical thinking and argument students’ writing can improve (De La Paz & Felton 2010; Monte-Sano, 2008; 2011). Despite the energy focused on historical thinking and writing in the research community, many teachers are not necessarily prepared to teach these aspects of the discipline. Large-scale analysis confirms that when teachers in the U.S. assign reading and writing in history classrooms, the focus typically involves basic reading comprehension and summary of information (Kiuhara, Graham, & Hawken, 2009), and the use of textbooks as authoritative sources of information (Bain, 2006). When as many as 53.9% of history teachers in the U.S. do not have even a minor in the discipline (Ravitch, 2000), this lack of attention to disciplinary thinking and writing is hardly surprising. As a consequence, efforts to influence the teaching and learning of history must give teachers opportunities to understand historical thinking and related literacies as well as learn how to teach toward such goals. Certainly, professional development efforts exist in history education, but we know little about their impact as of yet. Teaching American History grants from the U.S. Department of Education have tried to bolster teachers’ disciplinary preparation, but few evaluative studies exist (see Kortecamp & Steeves, 2006 and De La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, & Montenaro, 2011 for exceptions). And since the goals and learning opportunities vary by grant recipient, it’s difficult to glean any overarching approach that is successful. The Historical Thinking Project in Canada (Seixas, 2009) is a large-scale, coherent effort to develop six facets of students’ historical thinking. Leaders recognized the importance of professional development to the success of this Learning to Teach Argumentative Historical Writing, 3 DRAFT project from early on; yet, reports of these efforts are still forthcoming (see http://historicalthinking.ca/). Given the emphasis on thinking and literacy in history education and the fact that many teachers are unprepared to address these goals, it’s time to figure out what kinds of professional development will build teachers’ capacity to teach for historical thinking and related literacies. In this paper, we report on our own modest professional development efforts that accompanied a curriculum intervention project for 8 graders in the 17-largest school district in the U.S. We identify one specific student-learning goal located at the intersection of historical thinking and literacy: the disciplinary use of evidence in writing historical argument. In recognition of the challenges associated with such a goal, we developed an intervention for students and their teachers. We designed a one-year curriculum consisting of six, three-day investigations along with instructional tools to support students’ historical thinking, reading, and writing. Alongside the curriculum we created a one-year professional development experience to support teachers’ understanding of the intended outcomes and facility with the curriculum. Here, we share what teachers noticed in their students’ writing when given this opportunity to learn to teach historical thinking and writing, as well as the opportunity to reflect on student work during our professional development sessions. We use these analyses to reflect on teachers’ understandings and consider how we might best prepare teachers to teach historical thinking and writing in the future. Theoretical Background Learning to Teach Historical Thinking and Writing In learning to teach history, researchers have found that teachers’ disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and beliefs about students are important influences on novices’ Learning to Teach Argumentative Historical Writing, 4 DRAFT teaching (Conklin, 2008; Monte-Sano, 2011a; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988). Bohan and Davis (1998) examined three preservice teachers’ written construction of an historical event based on multiple sources as well as their historical thinking about those sources. They found a lack of understanding of historical thinking and the inquiry process as well as limited use of evidence to support claims in their written work. Monte-Sano and Harris (in press) found that even in a preservice program focused on teaching historical thinking, candidates may emphasize basic summary writing especially given weak disciplinary knowledge combined with the pressures of standardized testing and school-based initiatives. Teachers’ approach to history can become more reflective of the interpretive aspects of the discipline over time as novices learn to integrate this approach into their school settings. Little research has been done on veteran history teachers’ learning through inservice programs. A notable exception, Seixas (1999) found that experienced teachers and historians in professional development summer institutes had entirely different language to talk about history and this language typically divorced content from pedagogy. Such talk separated process and skills from content, something that a disciplinary literacy approach to history instruction seeks to integrate. Research in history education indicates the challenges to preparing teachers for cultivating their students’ historical thinking and writing, yet leaves us with many gaps in this area. Preservice Teacher Education The research that has been most helpful to us in thinking about teacher learning comes from outside of history education. In research conducted under the auspices of the Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA), Grossman and her colleagues (1999; 2000) use activity theory to frame learning to teach English as a process of appropriating pedagogical tools for teaching English. They consider two kinds of pedagogical tools: conceptual tools and Learning to Teach Argumentative Historical Writing, 5 DRAFT practical tools. Conceptual tools are “principles, frameworks, and ideas about teaching, learning, and English/language arts that teachers use as heuristics to guide their instructional decisions” (p. 633-634; Grossman, Valencia, Evans, Thompson, Martin, & Place, 2000). Practical tools include strategies, practices, or resources used in teaching that “have more local and immediate utility” (p. 14, Grossman, S