THINKING IN HISTORY 2 Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Nature of the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 9 Traditional Modes of Teaching History ...................................................................................... 9 Defining Higher Order Thinking .............................................................................................. 11 Higher Order Thinking in History: Non-Specific Skills ....................................................... 14 Higher Order Thinking in History: Domain-Specific Skills ................................................. 17 Higher Order Thinking in History: Updating Instructional Practices ................................... 18 Purpose: Reconceptualizing Teaching History ............................................................................. 22 Method .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Context ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Outline of the Course Topics .................................................................................................... 24 Topic One: What is Higher Order Thinking? ........................................................................ 24 Topic Two: What is History? ................................................................................................ 25 Topic Three: Two Approaches to Higher Order Thinking in History ................................... 25 Topic Four: Thinking is a Culture, Not an Activity .............................................................. 25 Topic Five: What is There to Think About in History? ........................................................ 25 Topic Six: Plan to Think ........................................................................................................ 25 Topic Seven: Thinking and Assessing................................................................................... 26 Topic Eight: Our Beliefs Dictate Our Interventions .............................................................. 26 Development Procedures........................................................................................................... 26 THINKING IN HISTORY 3 Evaluation Procedure ................................................................................................................ 27 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Reflection .................................................................................................................................. 28 Module Topics and Illustrative Experiences ............................................................................. 29 Structure .................................................................................................................................... 29 Feedback.................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A: Website Content .................................................................................................. 33 Home Page ............................................................................................................................. 33 Module 1: Our Beliefs Dictate Our Interventions ................................................................. 36 Module 2: What is Learning? ................................................................................................ 45 Module 3: What is History, Really? ...................................................................................... 75 Module 4: What is Higher Order Thinking? ......................................................................... 85 Module 5: Higher Order Thinking in History ..................................................................... 101 Conclusion: How Do You Eat an Elephant? ....................................................................... 123 Appendix H: Feedback Form .................................................................................................. 125 References ................................................................................................................................... 128 THINKING IN HISTORY 4 Acknowledgements When I started at Weber State University, I had a sincere and driving desire to fill holes in my skills as a teacher. I found the Master of Education program equal to the task and come away better prepared not only to teach but to help students learn. I want to express gratitude to Dr. Yimin Wang for her incredible support in the early stages of my thesis project selection, Dr. Penée Stewart for her practical approach to educational psychology in MED 6030 that became foundational to this project, and Dr. Louis Moulding for her support and constant willingness to answer email questions. I want to make special mention of my committee. I will forever be indebted to Dr. Stephanie Speicher for chairing my committee and for her mentorship, encouragement, optimism, and insights. A special thank you to Dr. Penée Stewart for her insights, direction, and constant support. Finally, thank you to Dr. Michael Van Wagenen from Georgia Southern University for once again being a mentor, even from across the country. I would be remiss if I did not thank my family. I am especially grateful for my dad who, through his unfortunate decision to repaint the kitchen (which doubled as my office), unwittingly became a captive audience and filled the roles of dictionary, thesaurus, editor, general sounding board, and co-conspirator for the many iterations of this project. Thank you so much. By the way, the kitchen looks great! THINKING IN HISTORY 5 Abstract Lower order thinking has dominated history classrooms for years. This simplistic, though largely unconscious, curriculum is the result of what researchers call the traditional approach to teaching history—instructional choices marked by lecture, textbooks, worksheets, and assessments that reinforce a concrete view of the past and emphasize a single right answer. By contrast, history, as understood and practiced in the professional field, is a dynamic, evidence-based discussion about the past. While researchers call for a more discipline-congruent approach to teaching history, the practicalities of such an approach are difficult for teachers to conceptualize in an education system that values outcomes over processes. The following curriculum project is a tool for secondary history teachers to reconceptualize what history is, how it can be taught, and how to engage students in higher order thinking. The content is a synthesis of the author’s graduate training in both history and teaching as well as practical classroom experience. Teachers will work through five modules that challenge the traditional approach to history education by asking them to reflect on their own practices in light of prevailing research, the realities of the learning process, and a common goal to engage students in higher order thinking. THINKING IN HISTORY 6 Nature of the Problem The traditional model of teaching history lacks relevance in the lives of students grappling with the fast-paced, forward-looking, technology-driven reality of the Twenty-first Century (Berg, 2016; Brailas et al., 2017; Fogarty and McTighe, 1993; Good et al, 1969; Narhayati et al., 2020). Such an approach can be identified using the following three characteristics. First, the traditional approach emphasizes teacher-to-student transmission of “knowledge” presented as indisputable facts and the teacher as the keeper and purveyor of knowledge (Brailas et al., 2017; Fischer et al, 2011; Ladwig and King, 1992; Lewis and Smith, 1993; Nurhayati et al, 2020; Onosko, 1991; Wineburg, 2001). Second, the implicit expectation that “learning” is demonstrated by students’ ability to identify correct answers on assessments and a reliance on grade-based outcomes (Fischer et al, 2011; Ladwig and King, 1992; Nurhayati et al, 2020; Onosko, 1991; Wineburg, 2001). Third, an unspoken expectation of behavior that casts students as passive learners (Brailas et al., 2017; Ladwig and King, 1992; Nurhayati et al, 2020; Wineburg, 2001). The result is two-fold: history content is situated (both in a pedagogical and socio-cultural sense) entirely within the context of the classroom and students develop a gross misconception of what history is—a concrete chain of events rather than a fluid argument about the past based on available evidence—and why it is useful in their lives now (Berg, 2016; Camp, 2012; Good et al, 1969, Lesh, 2011; Martinez, 2010; Narhayati et al, 2020; Nokes, 2013; Wineburg, 2001). In light of this trend, researchers agree that the nature of teaching history needs to change to emphasize higher order thinking and foster genuine engagement (Duea, 1995; Ladwig and King, 1992; Newmann 1987; Nokes, 2013; Nurhayati et al., 2020 Onosko, 1991; Wineburg, 2001). There is little agreement, however, over what this change should look like. One THINKING IN HISTORY 7 admittedly scholarly academic curricular approach is to teach history through the vehicle of domain and discipline-specific skills (i.e., historical thinking skills) (Berg, 2019; Gaddis, 2002; Good, et al., 1969; Havekes et al., 2010; Lesh, 2011; Nokes, 2013; Van Drie and Van Boxtel, 2007; Wineburg, 2001). A second approach is to increase higher order thinking in whatever form possible, domain specific or not (Duea, 1995; Fisher et al., 2011; Ladwig and King, 1992; Newmann, 1987; Nurhayati et al., 2020; Onosko, 1991). Finally, it can be argued that targeting higher order thinking skills is a moot point if educators would simply update their instructional practices to reflect the most recent research on learning and the brain coming out of psychology and neuroscience (Brailas et al., 2017; Buffum, 2018; Camp, 2012; Cuban, 1984; DuFour et al., 2016; Eljamal, et al. 1998; Kliebard, 1982; Lewis and Smith, 1993; Marzano, 2010; Martinez, 2010; McMillan, 2018; Richland and Simms, 2015; Ritchhard, et al., 2011; Polk, 2018; Schiro, 2013). The real tragedy of the current reality in history classrooms is not simply that curricular and instructional choices too often fall short of achieving depth of thought, but that without depth the true potential of history goes unrealized. As Wineburg (2001) argued, history has the potential to humanize us—to bring us together, foster empathy, and expand individuals’ perspectives of the world—more than any other subject taught in school. It is this humanizing effect that makes the study of history both relevant and essential in the lives of students and society at large (Nokes, 2013; Wineburg, 2001). Unfortunately, even when coupled with energetic and well-intentioned teachers, the goal of fostering higher order thinking is elusive (Weiss, 2003). The necessary changes to methods of teaching history are difficult for teachers to conceptualize in an outcome-based system where producing the right answer and getting a good grade have become the very definition of learning THINKING IN HISTORY 8 (Fischer et al, 2011; Kincheloe, 2016). When the rubber hits the road, teachers must grapple with enormous time constraints including (but not limited to) the daily checklist of lesson planning, grading, parent communications, student accommodations, professional development and faculty meetings, club and extra-curricular supervision, other school service responsibilities, demands coming from numerous governmental and administrative levels (some of which are helpful though many are simply time-consuming), and the ever-present pressure to gather and quantify student data (which often dictates the kind of assessments teachers give). While many history teachers openly acknowledge the need to change instructional and assessment methods, too many get bogged down in the day-to-day demands of teaching (Onosko, 1991). Without a clear, realistic, adaptable, and evidence-based framework modeling how to do things differently, teachers most often continue to teach the way they were taught—an apprenticeship of observation that perpetuates ineffective practices of teaching history (Marzano, 2010; Muhammad, 2009). THINKING IN HISTORY 9 Literature Review Traditional Modes of Teaching History According to Chiodo and Byford (2004), students’ perception of social studies, including history, have changed little over the past sixty years. An early study done on elementary and high school students’ perception of social studies, conducted by Fernandes et al. (1975), found that students described these classes as boring with little relevance to their lives. One of the most predominant recent studies found similar results: students felt social studies classes were “dull, boring, and irrelevant to their lives” (Chiodo and Byford, 2004, p. 16). This is in large part due to an instructional approach that has proven persistent in social studies classrooms through the years. This approach, referred to in research as the “traditional” mode of teaching social sciences, is described by Shaughnessy and Haladyna (1985) as instructional strategies that tend “to be dominated by the lecture, textbook or worksheets” that do “not inspire students to learn” or think (p. 694). As true today as it was sixty years ago, the traditional mode of teaching history lacks relevance in the lives of students living in a fast-paced, forward-looking, technology-driven society (Berg, 2016; Chiodo and Byford, 2004; Good et al, 1969, Narhayati et al, 2020). According to Chiodo and Byford (2004) students find lecture and worksheet-based instruction “repetitive and often predictable” (p. 20), not an atmosphere ripe for deep thinking, problem solving, or discussion. The repetitious and predicable nature of traditional modes of teaching history result in students’ loss of interest in the subject matter. This finding is consistent with research done earlier by Stiler (1988) who also warned that the problem was not the subject matter itself, but the monotonous instructional choices made by teachers. In essence, while teachers bemoan unresponsive and unengaged students in their history classes, it is teachers’ choices that are a major part of the problem. Luckily, they are also a major part of the solution. THINKING IN HISTORY 10 Newmann (1990) laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of the teachers, emphasizing not the lack of thinking among students but the “conspicuous absence of the promotion of thinking in social studies” (p. 325; emphasis added), implying a failure on the part of teachers to provide requisite opportunities and structures that allow students to think deeply. Onosko (1991) was the first to apply the critique of traditional modes of teaching specifically to history classes. While Newmann (1990) identified criteria that he believed must be present for higher order thinking to happen, Onosko (1991) focused primarily on elements traditionally present in a history classroom that stifle its attainment. Both criticize traditional instructional practices, such as teacher-to-student transmission of knowledge, rote memorization, assessment choices that emphasize the identification of a “right” answer, passive student learners, and pseudo “thinking” activities (Newmann, 1991; Onosko, 1991). Their critiques of traditional modes of teaching have become standard moving forward and are widely accepted as common knowledge by current researchers (Berg, 2019; Brailas et al., 2017, Cote, 2017; Hellyer, 2018; Nurhayati et al, 2020; Lesh, 2011; Ladwig and King, 1992, Wineburg, 2001; Onosko, 1991; Lewis and Smith, 1993; Fischer et al, 2011). The problems with the traditional modes of teaching history extend beyond boring students with endless lectures and worksheets. Many in the front lines in education—the history teachers themselves at a variety of levels—have seen firsthand the negative effects of traditional approaches to teaching history and are, together with the researchers, raising a voice of warning (Berg, 2016; Cote, 2017; Nokes, 2013; Wineburg, 2001). As one of the earliest and most well-known warning voices, Wineburg (2001) feared that the potential of history—the potential to humanize us and bring us together with empathy and understanding—will go unrealized if the current trend continues. The realization of that fear has been noted by many university campuses THINKING IN HISTORY 11 as, argued Berg (2016), history program enrollments are hitting all-time lows across the United States. Students are simply not interesting in content they do not find relevant. Berg (2016), Cote (2017), Nokes (2013), Wineburg (2001), and many other teachers and researchers agree that, in addition to irrelevant content, traditional modes of teaching history have led to a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of what history is. Too many students believe that history is a list of facts, dates, people, and events that they are required to memorize. They see history itself as a concrete body of knowledge rather than what it really is: an interpretation of the past based on available evidence and the target audience (Berg, 2016; Cote, 2017; Gaddis, 2002; Havekes et al, 2010; Nokes, 2013; Van Drie and Van Boxtel, 2007; Wineburg, 2001). Defining Higher Order Thinking While most researchers agree there is a conspicuous lack of higher order thinking in the American education system (Berg, 2019; Duea, 1995; Fischer et al, 2011; Fogarty and McTighe, 1993; Good et al., 1969; Ladwig and King, 1992; Lewis and Smith, 1993; Nurhayati, 2020; Onosko, 1991), there is no agreed-upon definition for, or vision of, the concept (Cuban, 1984; Lewis and Smith, 1993). After reviewing the field of competing definitions, Cuban (1984) observed that the “area is a conceptual swamp” (p. 676). Some, including Lewis and Smith (1993), Onosko (1991), Newmann (1988), and Duea (1995) called for a more unified conceptualization of higher order thinking both within history and in education at large. Duea (1995) however took this call much further than the others, arguing for a national standardization. He believed that one of the reasons higher order thinking is lacking in history classrooms is because relevant educators have not stepped up to create both a nationally recognized definition for themselves and a standard mode of measurement. Perhaps THINKING IN HISTORY 12 the reason other researchers have not gone as far as Duea is because they acknowledged that, why conceptual unity would be helpful, higher order thinking is highly subjective—what is higher order thinking for one student may be lower order thinking for another (Lewis and Smith, 1993; Newmann, 1988; Onosko, 1991). This is a point which Duea (1995) does not make. Needless to say, the subjective nature of higher order thinking complicates efforts to create conceptual unity and may completely abolish the idea of a national standard. Newmann (1991) broadly defined higher order thinking as “challenge and expanded use of the mind” (p. 325) and argued that it could really only be understood in context with its opposite, lower order thinking, which he defined as “routine, mechanistic application, and limited use of the mind” (p. 325). As processes involved in higher order thinking, Newmann (1991) included interpretation, analysis, and manipulation of information, all in response to a question or problem that cannot be solved through “routine application of previously learned knowledge” (p. 325), or lower order thinking. More recently, Fischer et al. (2011) defined higher order thinking as the ability to learn and make sense of new information. Most others agreed that it involves an element of going beyond simple sense making. Lewis and Smith (1993) proposed that students must integrate new and old information and then extend it “to achieve a purpose or find possible answers in perplexing situations” (p. 136). Onosko (1991) and Ritchhart et al. (2011) also emphasized that for higher order thinking to take place, students must use learned information to solve real-world problems. While the definition of higher order thinking has not been settled, recent researchers have come to the common conclusion that increasing it is not a simple endeavor. Brailas (2017) and Ladwig and King (1992) both agree that if higher order thinking is ever going to become part THINKING IN HISTORY 13 and parcel in the education system there must be a parallel shift in teacher thinking and attitudes. In other words, teachers must reconceptualize the process of learning, how it is demonstrated, and the role of curriculum in school. Both Fogarty and McTighe (1993) and Nurhayati, et al. (2020), while agreeing with the others, also observed that today’s teachers lack the training, and thus the knowledge, to accomplish this. Without an awareness of (and themselves having competence in) thinking skills, teachers are left grasping at straws—they have enough insight to know students are not engaged in deep thinking but limited means of bridging the gap (Fogarty and McTighe, 1993; Nurhayati et al., 2020). According to Fogarty and McTighe (1993), educating teachers how to explicitly teach higher order thinking skills will require a great deal of training and scaffolding in pre-service education. One danger in trying to increase higher order thinking in the classroom is that it becomes an activity rather than a habit. According to Ritchhart et al. (2011), thinking skills must become part of classroom norms and integrated into student behavior, carefully and purposefully molded by the teacher into classroom culture, from day one, and then consistently and purposefully maintained throughout the year. Fogarty and McTighe (1993) also agreed that teachers should take time to explicitly teach higher order thinking skills but went one step further to argue that the content should not be the focus of education at all. Rather, content merely “provides something to think about [while] cognitive instruction [i.e., higher order thinking] provides the ways to engage students in dealing with the content in meaningful ways” (p. 161). This is a sentiment echoed by Fisher et al. (2001) and Brailas et al., (2017). Another complication in teaching higher order thinking (to either students or teachers) is the competing ideas of which skills should be taught. There are two major contenders in the literature. The first approach is concerned with higher order thinking in general (Fischer et al, THINKING IN HISTORY 14 2011; Fogarty and McTighe, 1993; Ladwig and King, 1992; Nurhayati et al, 2020; Onosko, 1991) and in whatever form possible, emphasizing the transferability of such thinking to different academic and real-world settings (Duea, 1995; Ladwig and King, 1992; Lewis & Smith, 1993; Nurhayati et al, 2020). The second approach proposes that, in a history classroom, higher order thinking should reflect domain-specific skills (Kliebard, 1982; Nokes, 2013; Van Drie and Van Boxtel, 2007; Wineburg, 2001). Arguing from a scholar academic paradigm, this approach claims that discipline-specific skills orient students to the type of work done by history professionals and ensure the essence of history (its definition and nature) is properly understood (Nokes, 2013; Schiro, 2013; Van Drie and Van Boxtel, 2007; Wineburg, 2001). A third approach that lacks a body of research in the realm of history teaching is simply to update instructional methods to reflect what science now knows about the nature of learning and the brain coming out of the fields of educational psychology and neuroscience. Higher Order Thinking in History: Non-Specific Skills In terms of non-specific higher order thinking, both Newmann (1987) and Onosko (1991) constructed the predominant frameworks used in the United States to determine whether or not students are engaging in higher order thinking. Given that, as Newmann (1991) points out, thinking is typically an internal and thus invisible process, these frameworks have become paramount for more recent researchers in quantifying a highly qualitative a subjective event (Lewis & Smith, 1993; Ritchhart, 2011). Newmann’s (1991) framework, Six Minimal Criteria for Classroom Thoughtfulness, consists of elements over which teachers and districts have control and can apply to a classroom setting using, for the most part, small adjustments in expectations and instructional practices. His minimum criteria are: 1) a sustained examination of a few topics rather than superficial coverage THINKING IN HISTORY 15 of many, 2) lessons display substantive coherence and continuity, 3) students are given ample think time to formulate their responses, 4) teachers ask challenging questions and/or structures challenging tasks, 5) teachers model thoughtfulness, and 6) students are required to give explanations and reasons for their conclusions. Note that Newmann delineated that these are minimal criteria and thus not an exhaustive list. Onosko (1991) called Newmann’s minimal criteria “six critical dimensions” to higher order thinking (p. 6) and added a list of six barriers that traditionally prevent it. These barriers include both structural forces and teacher perceptions that work against the development of thoughtfulness. Where these barriers are, higher order thinking is not: 1) teachers’ perception that knowledge is transmitted, 2) broad, superficial coverage of content, 3) teachers’ low expectations of students, 4) large numbers of students in a single classroom, 5) lack of adequate time for teachers to plan, and 6) a culture of teacher isolation. In addition to these six barriers to thinking, Onosko also identified three resources that, he argued, students absolutely need for higher order thinking to take place: 1) in-depth knowledge because “thinking cannot take place in a content or information vacuum” (p. 5), 2) cognitive skills or “strategies, techniques, and heuristics one uses when working to solve a challenging problem or task” (p. 5), and 3) a “disposition of thoughtfulness” (p. 6). Onosko did not indicate where these resources come from—whether they were part of a student’s natural ability or if they could be learned. Later researchers agree with the necessity of cognitive skills and a disposition for thoughtfulness but argued that both could be explicitly taught and learned (Duea, 1995; Fischer et al, 2011; Ladwig and King, 1992; Lewis and Smith, 1993; Nurhayati, 2020; Ritchhart et al, 2011). However, most researchers today disagree with Onosko’s claim that in-depth knowledge must precede higher order thinking. Rather, it is now THINKING IN HISTORY 16 commonly believed that in-depth knowledge naturally develops out of investigation into the content regardless of students’ initial level of proficiency. Additionally, teachers’ drive to deliver content knowledge before attempting to engage in higher order thinking very quickly becomes a barrier in and of itself. (Duea, 1995; Fischer et al, 2011; Havakes et al, 2010; Ladwig and King, 1992; Lewis and Smith, 1993; Nurhayati, 2020; Ritchhart et al, 2011; Van Drie and Van Boxtel, 2007). As an educational psychologist, Martinez (2010) extended this argument, claiming that thinking well [i.e., higher order thinking] is not a manifestation of knowledge at all. Rather, thinking well is closer to a complex skill that can still effectively happen in the absence of depth of knowledge and often leads to it in more meaningful and enduring ways. With one or two exceptions, Newmann’s and Onosko’s frameworks focused on things teachers could control within their classroom. By contrast, more recent trends in education suggest that structural changes to schools themselves provide, among other things, a more appropriate context for higher order thinking in history as well as all other subjects (Marzano, 2010; DuFour et al, 2006; Buffum, 2018). Ladwig and King (1992) used Newmann’s Six Minimal Criteria for Classroom Thoughtfulness to analyze the depth of thinking in history classrooms in schools that underwent various restructuring. Their research showed that while structural changes can provide increased opportunity, they do not, on their own, increase higher order thinking. Rather, higher order thinking most often stems from an appropriate change in teacher attitude, instructional choices, and school culture (Ladwig and King, 1992; Fisher et al, 2011; Lewis and Smith, 1993). At first glance, these findings may appear to contradict and undermine the purposes of some of the more popular structural change trends, such as Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)—one of the preeminent forms of school-wide structural change in the United States THINKING IN HISTORY 17 today, first proposed by DuFour in the 1960s. To this point, DuFour, Marzano, Mattos, and other PLC researchers responded that such criticisms are exactly right. A PLC is not just a structural change within a school or district but also a shift in teacher thinking (called the PLC Process). The two must go hand in hand (Solution Tree, 2010). Higher Order Thinking in History: Domain-Specific Skills The domain-specific framework for higher order thinking in the United States was spring boarded by Wineburg (2001). His particular framework is, arguably, the most well-known by history teachers today, due in no small part to the efforts of the Stanford History Education Group (of which Wineburg is the head), an award-winning research and development group that publishes free, ready-to-use document-based lesson plans (SHEG, History of SHEG section). SHEG also receives a great deal of emphasis in history teacher pre-service education. More recently, several competing frameworks, all of which advocate for discipline-specific higher order thinking skills, are being developed outside the United States, though none have reached the same level of primacy as Wineburg (Havekes et al, 2010; Nurhayati et al, 2020; van Drie & van Boxtel, 2007). Foundational to Wineburg’s framework is his claim that historical thinking—the kind of thinking done by academic and professional historians—does not come naturally to students and, thus, must be explicitly taught (Wineburg, 2001). The Stanford History Education Group codified Wineburg’s findings into four domain-specific skills: sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, and close reading (SHEG, Historical Thinking Chart section). Nokes (2013), who used the term “historical literacies” instead of historical thinking skills, added the concepts of text and context to Wineburg’s list while Lesh (2011) added historical empathy. In practice, history teachers, teams, and departments that ascribe to teaching domain-specific skills add or THINKING IN HISTORY 18 subtract to this list to suite their own instructional needs. Even with the preeminence of Wineburg’s framework and the rest of the body of research supporting the need to increase thoughtfulness, researchers are showing that higher order thinking (domain-specific or not) is far from a normal activity in history classrooms across America. Onosko’s barriers to higher order thinking are as ubiquitous today, within the context of the post-Wineburg generation of teachers, as they were in the early 1990s when Onosko originally identified them. Higher Order Thinking in History: Updating Instructional Practices Polk (2018), a neuroscientist, suggested that one possible reason for the continued lack of higher order thinking in education in general is that there is a measurable gap between what neuroscientists and psychologists have learned about the nature of learning and brain processes in the last ten years and classroom instructional practices. In other words, educational methods, not just in history, but across the board, have not kept pace with research. Mayer (2016), an educational psychologist, echoed Polk in saying, “Neuroscientists have produced a lot of useful new information on learning that should be relevant to education, but that research has not yet had much impact,” possibly because “the science of learning… does not translate directly into a science of instruction” (p. 836). While a direct triangulation between neuroscience, educational psychology, and history teaching does not yet exist, there is invaluable information about teaching and learning from which history teachers can glean a great deal and should be aware of when trying to increase thoughtfulness or invoke higher order thinking in the classroom. This information is relevant here because when teachers ask students to engage in higher order thinking, they are essentially dealing with functions and processes of the brain—the domain of neuroscience and educational psychology. If Brailas (2017) and Ladwig and King THINKING IN HISTORY 19 (1992) are right—that increasing higher order thinking in the classroom requires a parallel shift in teachers’ understanding of and attitude toward learning—then perhaps these two fields have something to offer educators in facilitating that shift. Martinez (2010) backs up this belief, claiming that “knowledge of effective education is deeply informed by an appreciation for the complexity of cognition in both the student and the teacher” (p. 5). A thorough analysis into the literature of neuroscience and educational psychology as it pertains to teaching and learning will not be given here. Rather, the following is a review of the two theories most pertinent to this research. Learning Theory. In his landmark book, Experience and Education, American educational philosopher John Dewey argued that any experience could be educational regardless of where it occurs (Dewey, 1938). The criteria Dewey proposed to judge whether or not an experience is educational is its level of continuity—the potential of the experience to continue to be useful and profitable to the individual in the future (Dewey, 1938; Martinez, 2010). Hence, as Martinez (2010) argues, “If knowledge or skill has value only in the school context, then it lacks continuity” (p. 3) and is not true education. With this in mind, how much of what happens in classrooms across the United States (history classrooms or not) can truly be considered education today? There are as many learning theories as there are competing definitions of higher order thinking. Three foundational theories, however, are behavior learning theory, cognitive learning theory, and constructive learning theory. Behavior learning theory, championed by researchers such as Thorndike, Watson, Skinner, and Pavlov, proposes that learning is the result of stimulus-response processes. This approach to learning focuses heavily on the teacher, who provides the stimulus and reinforces the desired response from students (Martinez, 2010; Morris, 1996). THINKING IN HISTORY 20 The centrality of behavior learning theory faded toward the end of the twentieth century, giving way to cognitive learning theory (Martinez, 2010). Whereas behaviorism focused on observables, cognitivism is concerned with the internal processes of the brain. In cognitive learning theory, learning is defined as the successful movement of information from working memory to long term memory. Basically, learning does not happen unless there is a structural change to long-term memory (Martinez, 2010). Much of the current research in cognitive learning theory is informed by strides made in neuroscience—the study of the anatomy and physiology of the brain. The concept of higher order thinking falls squarely in the realm of cognitive learning theory precisely because thinking is an internal act—it happens in the brain. However, both behaviorism and cognitivism have their place in education because people are affected by both internal processes and external stimuli. In this sense, behaviorism explains the external stimuli over which the teacher has control as well as the individual circumstances of the student which are outside the teacher’s control. Cognitivism explains the internal processes of the student, including thought, memory, emotion, and mental capacity. The two theories together can help teachers understand the promoters and constraints involved in higher order thinking. Transfer of Learning. One key concept in educational psychology is the idea of transfer of learning. As with higher order thinking, there are many competing definitions for transfer of learning. However, a general definition can be understood as “the application of knowledge learned in one context to a different context” (Martinez, 2010, pg. 111). Martinez (2010) posits that even if transfer is only arguably the ultimate goal of education, that still makes it incredibly important for, “without transfer, the exercise of education would be totally sealed off and self-referential” (p. 111). This sentiment is echoed throughout the literature (Bransford et al, 1999; THINKING IN HISTORY 21 Desse, 1958; Graff, 2010). Unfortunately, transfer does not happen automatically or intuitively. This shortcoming of the mind was first hypothesized by Thorndike (1924) and has been supported by many subsequent researchers (Bartel, 2008; Camp, 2012; Martinez, 2010). Thus, Bransford et al (1999) argued that students should be explicitly taught how to use classroom knowledge in their everyday lives. Accomplishing this, however, means that teachers must structure both content and pedagogy to allow the opportunity for transfer to happen, then make it explicit (Camp, 2012; Dorn et al, 1998; Bernander and Lightner, 2005). THINKING IN HISTORY 22 Purpose: Reconceptualizing Teaching History While there is much debate about how to go about it, there is near universal agreement that history teaching needs to change (Brailes et al., 2017; Duea, 1995; Fogarty and Mctighe, 1993; Newmann, 1991; Nokes, 2013; Nurhayati et al., 2020; Ladwig and King, 1992; Onosko, 1991; Wineburg, 2001). The problem is, the necessary changes are difficult for teachers to conceptualize in a system where good outcomes (identifying the right answer and scoring well on the assessment) have become the standard measure of learning (Kincheloe, 2016; Fischer et al, 2011). Unfortunately, this approach only teaches students to reproduce knowledge, not understand, synthesize, or apply it in creative or new ways (Newmann, 1991; McMillan, 2018). A student’s ability to regurgitate historical facts is not an indication that they understand history and teaching history this way makes it irrelevant to life. While Newmann’s (1991) study identifies a lack of opportunity for students to engage in higher order thinking (something squarely within teachers’ control), Onosko (1991) softens the blow by acknowledging that teachers get bogged down in the day-to-day demands of teaching and face both conceptual and structural walls (Onosko, 1991). This results in what Muhammad (2009) called the apprenticeship of observation—teachers teach the way they were taught because, regardless of what current research says, it is how they were socialized into education from their earliest days in the classroom. It is what we know and thus what we do.Purpose The purpose of this project was to create a tool to assist middle and high school history teachers in creatively increasing both the opportunity and expectation for students to engage in higher order thinking by overcoming some of the common hurdles that so often hinder it. The objectives of this project were two-fold: 1. First and foremost, this tool was designed to help teachers examine and make THINKING IN HISTORY 23 necessary changes to the way they think about history as a subject of instruction. In addition, the guide is flexible enough to adapt to multiple teaching styles and meet a variety of needs based on local student populations. The guide includes small changes teachers can make over time to pedagogical and curricular choices within the history classroom. 2. The tool also consolidates major frameworks on higher order thinking into a conceptual whole that helps teachers face and overcome many of the barriers still dominating today’s classrooms. THINKING IN HISTORY 24 Method Context This curriculum guide was developed specifically for secondary history teachers (middle and high school) which generally covers state, national, and world history classes. The guide is designed to be adaptable and, thus, useful to any state core as well as any local situation to meet the needs of the individual students. The guide also includes activities, experiments, and reflection opportunities, all housed in an interactive webpage. It must be noted that the author’s home state, Utah, does not currently have a high stakes end-of-year assessment for history at any grade. (Students are expected to take and pass a citizenship test in order to graduate. The test, however, can be retaken as many times as necessary and does not count toward the student’s grade.) Because of this, the curriculum guide does not account for situations where high stakes tests are in place. This being said, the same principles apply regardless, though the application may differ. Outline of the Course Topics The following broadly outlines the scope of the guide. Please note that the outline is broken down by topic. The topics do not need be followed in chronological order and teachers can navigate through them freely. Topic One: What is Higher Order Thinking? Objectives: Teachers will • understand the definition of higher order thinking. • understand common institutional and personal barriers to higher order thinking. • reflect on opportunities for students to engage in higher order thinking in their classroom as it now stands. THINKING IN HISTORY 25 Topic Two: What is History? Objectives: Teachers will • understand the academic definition of history. • contrast the academic definition of history with student perceptions of history that are formed as consequence of traditional modes of teaching. Topic Three: Two Approaches to Higher Order Thinking in History Objectives: Teachers will • understand the pros and cons of two main approaches to increasing higher order thinking: history-specific skills vs. non-specific higher order thinking skills. • select and justify an approach (or combination of approaches) for their classroom. Topic Four: Thinking is a Culture, Not an Activity Objectives: Teachers will • understand the importance of developing a thinking culture. • make a plan to incorporate thinking into classroom culture. Topic Five: What is There to Think About in History? Objectives: Teachers will • identify what there is to think about in history beyond recall of information. • begin to think about history from the perspective of arguments and evidence and how to engage students in this approach. Topic Six: Plan to Think Objectives: Teachers will • understand how changes in teacher thinking about history can translate to more opportunities for higher order thinking in the classroom. THINKING IN HISTORY 26 • identify a few small changes they can make each day that can help increase higher order thinking in the classroom. • use the planning tool to design a lesson or unit of study that gives students both the opportunity and expectation to think at deeper levels. Topic Seven: Thinking and Assessing Objectives: Teachers will • understand that assessment choices influence instructional choices. • understand that content coverage and depth of thought are mutually exclusive. • identify essential information for an upcoming lesson plan or unit of study that will be assessed to mastery. Topic Eight: Our Beliefs Dictate Our Interventions Objectives: Teachers will • understand the role beliefs play in the way we respond to students. • identify some of their beliefs in regards to education. • identify ways that their actions support or contradict their beliefs. Development Procedures In addition to knowledge synthesized form relevant research, this guide was developed using the author’s experience re-writing curriculum as part of a history team in three different schools across two districts in the Utah education system, graduate training though a Master of Arts in History and certificate in public history program, and experience serving as an education coordinator at a university museum in Georgia. The guide pulls from philosophies that underpin Professional Learning Communities (PLC) as advocated by Solution Tree, combined with both Newmann and Onosko’s frameworks as the theoretical backbone. THINKING IN HISTORY 27 Evaluation Procedure The author intended the guide to be reviewed by two university faculty members (one from the College of Education and one from the Department of History) and a current secondary history teacher. Evaluators were given a feedback form composed mainly of open-ended questions and some Likert-scaled items. The goal of the survey was to elicit qualitative feedback that could be used to improve both the structure and the content of the website. The form, the specific feedback, and a discussion of how the feedback influenced the final product are be included in Appendix B. THINKING IN HISTORY 28 Discussion Reflection My vision was to challenge teachers to think about higher order thinking. To facilitate this, I created an interactive website where teachers could feel involved in the learning process. I maintained a casual but professional tone so the content would be more conversational than lecture. In addition, I implemented simple design elements to engage readers, such as light-boxes, hover boxes, and other clickables (to break up text), as well as reflections opportunities, activities, and informal experiments in which readers could participate. Reflection is the backbone of the project. Hence, there are many opportunities for teachers to reflect on their reality, their students, their practices in light of current research, and their goals. This project is meant to be an adaptable, research-based tool for teachers in a variety of settings. Early in the planning process, I intended the vehicle to be a published article. However, my committee chair pointed out that a website would make the information more accessible to a wider audience. I had to overcome a learning curve when it came to putting the content in the website. I experimented with several web design platforms and settled on Wix.com. The platform was intuitive for beginners and flexible enough to fit my needs. I learned that writing a project of this type for a printed article vs a webpage were two very different processes. Unlike a printed article, writing for a website necessitates careful planning as layout, design elements, and interactivity are all major parts of the final product and weigh heavily on the organization and structure of the writing. This project went through four major structural changes and/or re-writes over the course of the semester. I realized, perhaps a little too late, that I would not have time to do everything I THINKING IN HISTORY 29 originally intended. For example, I intended to include a video activity in each module but had to cut it down to just one for the whole project. In addition, I cut the total number of modules from eight to five, which necessitated consolidating several sections and topics originally intended to stand alone. While I lament some of these changes, I believe the time constraint also helped me stay close to my purpose. Module Topics and Illustrative Experiences The purpose of this project was to help history teachers foster higher order thinking among their students. Rather than focus modules solely on topics directly related to this (such as history, higher order thinking, and how to combine the two in a classroom), I elected to include a module on the importance of teachers’ belief systems and another on the learning process. As I outlined the structure of the content, I discovered both were necessary to establish a common understanding of the current realities in education and what changes individual teachers could make to reach the goal of higher order thinking. Throughout the modules, I used experiences to illustrate main points and bring the content from theoretical to relatable. While many of the experiences come from observations of or conversations with other educators, others are my own. As I state in the homepage, this project was a synthesis of what I learned in both my history and education master’s programs combined with years of practical classroom experience. Structure The website consists of a home page, five modules, and a conclusion. The home page discusses the purpose of the website, a little about me and the journey that led me to this project, and instructions on how to use the site. Each module begins with two elements: 1) learning objectives and 2) a downloadable/printable Module Notebook that includes writing prompts and THINKING IN HISTORY 30 space to record reflections to encourage and facilitate teacher participation in reflections, activities, and experiments. Each module is designed to be self-contained—teachers can pick and choose which modules to work through, or in what order, without loss of continuity. This necessitated some repetition between modules. However, as I will discuss in the Feedback section, the repetition is not cumbersome. Module titles in the final product are as follows: - Module 1: Our Beliefs Dictate Our Interventions - Module 2: What is Learning? - Module 3: What is History, Really? - Module 4: What is Higher Order Thinking? - Module 5: Higher Order Thinking in History Finally, the conclusion page asks teachers how to eat an elephant and relates the answer to how we change our paradigm and, by extension, our approach to teaching history. I elected to use Chicago-style footnotes instead of APA in-text citations in the web page to increase its readability. In-text citations tend to make the text longer and can be distracting to readers. In addition, as my target audience is history teachers and Chicago is the standard writing style in history, most readers will be familiar with footnotes. Feedback My initial plan was to have the website reviewed by three individuals: two university professors (one in history and one in education) and a current secondary history teacher. The two professors were willing and excited, but, even after several gentle reminders and their continued positive responses, neither finished in time. Though the secondary history teacher initially agreed to provide feedback, she later sent an email indicating she simply did not have time and would not be able to follow through. This necessitated a contingency plan. THINKING IN HISTORY 31 In the end, I was able to get feedback from two individuals: Gary Reid and Mary Cottrell. Gary Reid is a retired principal who, when he was active in the education system, received national attention for breaking down the compartmentalization of education and creating a school culture where cross-curricular collaboration was expected from all teachers. The end result was a school where higher order thinking was the norm among both teachers and students. Mary Cottrell is a secondary history teacher in Iowa who, while certified, does not currently teach. As the website was only partially completed, both individuals received an emailed copy of the content and a link to explore the Home Page, Module 1, and Module 2. In addition, while both received a feedback form (included in Appendix H), both opted, instead, to provide feedback in a face-to-face format. Mr. Reid invited me over to dinner to discuss the project and Mrs. Cottrell set up a video call. Mr. Reid responded favorably to the website design, commenting that if he (in his words, “an old fogey”) could navigate it, others should not have issues. He also read the modules out of order, starting with the ones he thought sounded most interesting. He felt the modules were just repetitive enough to entice readers to want to work through them all while still being self-contained and not overly cumbersome. Mr. Reid’s biggest criticism was that the content “takes too many pot-shots at teachers.” He worried I was too critical and, as a result, would offend readers and chase them away. My conversation with Mrs. Cottrell happened several days after talking with Mr. Reid. She responded favorably in the same areas and also believed I was too critical of teachers in general. She encouraged me to be more optimistic and empower teachers rather than point out our failings. In addition, she suggested re-ordering a few of the modules and taking a completely different, more succinct, approach to Module 4. THINKING IN HISTORY 32 Mrs. Cottrell’s latter two suggestions were easy to implement. Reordering the modules helped the information flow easier and took minimal work. Module 4 was, at that point, the longest, most tedious module. I was aware of the problem but could not figure out how to do it differently. Mrs. Cottrell’s suggestion was to focus on the big-picture, vertical alignment of the different frameworks rather than discuss each element of each framework individually. Both suggestions were invaluable. As to their shared critique, I did not intentionally mean to be critical of my fellow teachers. It took me a few readings to find and correct the issue. In the end, the project is better for it, and I appreciated their honesty. THINKING IN HISTORY 33 Appendices Appendix A: Website Content Home Page Purpose and About Me I restated the question for the third time, but still, no one stirred. As I looked over my students, a realization struck me that made my heart sink. They weren’t sitting silently because they didn’t know the answer. They were sitting silently because they weren’t even thinking about the question! Somehow, I had totally lost them. I found myself looking at an entire class of bored, unengaged students. Okay, I thought to myself, Now what? I am a history teacher. I love my students, am passionate about teaching, and enjoy my content (students, teaching, content, in that order). But, after experiencing more than one day like the one above, I decided there had to be something different, something better, something… more. More. That is the word I settled on. I wanted more: more substance to class, more thinking, more curiosity, more enjoyment, for more insights, more connections between content and life, more satisfaction from teaching—just more! I thought, Maybe I don’t know enough. So, I got a master’s degree in history. In the process, I learned two things. First, I was reminded what it was like to be a student and experience teaching, learning, and teachers from the student’s perspective. After taking classes from teachers who, in many respects, taught like me, I developed renewed empathy for my students. Second, I realized the version of history students experience in secondary education and the history I experienced in the master’s program were not the same history. In fact, the first was not even a shadow of the second. I was caught in what one researcher called the apprenticeship of observation—teaching the way I was taught history in middle and high THINKING IN HISTORY 34 school. I mean, if the approach worked for me, it should work for my students, right?1 Actually, no. After graduation, I returned to teaching with newfound empathy and determination to do better and offer more. A few years later, I hit the wall again. Something still wasn’t quite right. I still felt like we were dragging through too many classes, that while students thought I was entertaining, they weren’t developing any intrinsic curiosity about the content, and that learning was…just less. Again, I yearned for more. So, what did I do? I went back to school—because, why not?—this time for a Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction where I learned two things. First, the root of all change in the classroom is the teacher. Second, there are universal principles that, when properly applied, create a classroom atmosphere and culture where more can happen. This webpage is a synthesis of what I learned in both the history and education master’s degrees combined with practical experience as a classroom teacher. It is an attempt to marry history (what history really is) with secondary teaching practices and the realities of learning. My goal is present tools for history teachers who wish to break out of the apprenticeship of observation and do something more—specifically, to engage students in higher order thinking. Why higher order thinking? Because that is the ultimate more we can offer students: to think more, to learn more, to make more connections, to be more self-sufficient in their education, and to apply more of it to life. The funny thing is, to accomplish this we have to start with ourselves and re-think the way we (the teachers) think about and teach history. To that end, this site is built around the idea that our beliefs dictate our actions (a concept to which Module 1 is dedicated). The modules are 1 Robert J. Marzano, Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading (Indiana: Marzano Research, 2010). THINKING IN HISTORY 35 designed to help you explore your current beliefs about students, learning, teaching, and history as a discipline, understand how those beliefs influence our instructional choices, investigate teaching through the lens of learning in educational psychology, and connect how all these things work together in our history classrooms. How to Use this Site While I recommend moving through the modules chronologically, feel free to jump around. As you go, you will find various external links both in the text and footnotes. I am not affiliated with any of the links. I include them simply as additional resources should you wish to dive deeper. There are also several anecdotes throughout the modules. These are true stories, either from my personal experience or the experience of others. All names have been changed to protect the identify of students and other teachers. Each module has reflection opportunities. You are welcome to do these activities abstractly (just think about them) though I recommend actually putting your thoughts into writing. This takes our thinking out of the realm of the abstract, into the concrete world and helps us see connections we would otherwise miss. To facilitate this, at the beginning of each module you will find a printable Module Notebook that contains reflection questions for that module. Module 1: Our Beliefs Dictate Our Interventions Objectives Teachers will: - Understand the role beliefs play in the way we respond to students. - Identify some of their beliefs in regards to education. - Identify ways their actions support or contradict their stated beliefs. <<Module 1 Notebook>> First, A Question I’m going to ask a question. Prepare yourself, this is a big one. What do you believe? I realize this is a huge question with many complicated answers. But, of all the questions you will be asked throughout this guide, this may be the most important. Whether we realize it or not, our beliefs dictate how we interact with the world around us—including our students. In other words (to adapt a phrase from an avid student advocate and teacher, Jeff Noble), our beliefs dictate our interventions.”1 Let me give you an example. Have you ever found yourself in a situation similar to the following? You have a student, let’s call him John. John’s outburst in class are so frequent, you can set your watch by them. He enjoys making jokes, and, in general, blurting out whatever happens to pop into his mind. It is a struggle to prevent the class from being derailed. Actually, even other students are starting to get annoyed with John. In addition, he is always a step or two behind the class. When you finish giving instructions and set the class to work, he is usually the one to call out ten minutes later, “Wait, what are we doing?” John is never prepared and has little focus. He has trouble staying in his seat, is off task much of the time, and only rarely turns in completed work. What does get completed reflects minimal effort, especially when compared to his peers. All in all, John takes up an enormous amount of your time—and it is exhausting. Sound familiar? If you haven’t had a student like John, just wait. All teachers experience a version of John, to varying degrees, at least once. 1 Jeff Noble, “The FASD Success Show,” accessed 21 March, 2022, https://www.fasdsuccess.com/about THINKING IN HISTORY 37 There are many ways we can interpret John’s behavior, and each interpretation—each belief—will naturally lead to a different course of action. M1 Activity: Beliefs and Actions Below are statements made by a few of John’s teachers. Each statement reveals the teachers’ underlying beliefs about John, his behavior, and their roll and responsibility as a teacher. Read each statement and, in the Module 1 Notebook, complete the sentences with the course of action you predict each teacher will take based on their underlying beliefs. Teacher 1: John’s behaviors are disruptive to my class. They negatively impact my ability to teach, other students’ ability to learn, and are exhausting to deal with. I am going to: Teacher 2: John’s behaviors are disruptive in class. In addition to negatively impacting other students’ ability to learn, they are cutting his own education short. I wonder what the cause of the behaviors are? I am going to: Teacher 3: John’s behaviors are hard, but I know the kid is going through a lot at home that is out of his control. Man, the things kids have to deal with these days—I don’t know how they do it. I am going to: Teacher 4: I am aware that John has ADHD and an IEP. I recognize his behaviors are consistent with symptoms of ADHD. I am going to: How did each teacher’s beliefs change your predicted course of action? Maybe I should ask first, did the action change? It absolutely should have because, again, whether we are aware of it or not, our beliefs dictate our interventions. Analyzing Teacher Statements Let’s take a closer look. Click each teacher below to analyze their statements. Teacher One: John’s behaviors are disruptive to my class. They negatively impact my ability to teach, other students’ ability to learn, and they are exhausting to deal with. Teacher One believes, consciously or unconsciously, that John is in control of his THINKING IN HISTORY 38 behavior and is choosing to disrupt class. In addition, the teacher’s ability to convey a lesson plan is of high priority, which John is impeding. This, in turn, derails the atmosphere the teacher is trying to create. John is, after all, only one in a classroom full of students and he is putting the others at risk. Is it not the teacher’s job to protect other students’ learning too? With this belief system, it is easy to generate punishment, send John to the hallway or the principal, get angry at him, and take everything he does personally. The teacher’s relationship with John quickly becomes adversarial—something he (and the other students) will most definitely pick up on. Unfortunately, this only serves to perpetuate the situation at the least and escalate it at most. In the end, neither John nor the teacher wins. Teacher Two: John’s behaviors are disruptive in class. In addition to negatively impacting other students’ ability to learn, they are cutting his own education short. I wonder what the cause of the behaviors are? Teacher Two, by contrast, is full of empathy. The teacher does not deny the consequences of John’s behavior but believes that behaviors have causes. Rather than assuming John is intentionally misbehaving, this teacher naturally seeks out more information and then acts accordingly without being punitive. The teacher also recognizes that John’s behaviors are self-destructive—they negatively affect him both now and in the future far more severely than the current disruption in class. Guided by this belief system, interventions are constructive and relationship based. The teacher looks for ways to work with John (not against him) and gives him safe opportunities to make different choices. This teacher celebrates John’s small successes (both behavioral and academic), knowing that these small victories will lead to bigger ones. Teacher Three: John’s behaviors are hard, but I know the kid is going through a lot at home that is out of his control. Man, the things kids have to deal with these days—I don’t know how they do THINKING IN HISTORY 39 it. Like Teacher Two, Teacher Three is full of empathy. This teacher not only acknowledges that behaviors have causes, but that many of the causes are out of the teacher’s control, such as a student’s home life. Understanding and internalizing this makes it easier for the teacher to realize that John’s behavior is not personal. This teacher focuses on elements she can control and makes the most of these—the time that John spends in her classroom and her interactions with him. For Teacher Three, school is not just about the academics (the content, the lessons, the assessments, and the grades). School is about life, and she knows students have lives outside of and beyond the classroom. This teacher applies the adage, “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care” and focuses on building a relationship of trust with John first, knowing academics will naturally follow. Teacher Four: I am aware John has ADHD and an IEP. I recognize his behaviors are consistent with symptoms of ADHD. In Teacher Four’s scenario, John has an IEP for a known disability—ADHD. This scenario has a slew of its own potential teacher beliefs and resulting actions. What does the teacher know about the disability? What does the teacher believe about disabilities in general? What does the teacher believe about accommodations? How much does the teacher know about special education as it relates to a regular education classroom? And the list goes on. For our purposes, let’s focus on the ideal. Ideally, the teacher got their IEPs (the full IEP, not an “IEP at a Glance”) before students started back to school (or, at least soon thereafter), took time to read them over, and researched any disability with which he or she was not familiar. Then, the teacher brainstormed ways to meet the legally required accommodations—not in an effort to check the box but out of a desire THINKING IN HISTORY 40 to truly serve the student. The presence of an IEP put the student on the teacher’s radar right away. Perhaps the teacher even reached out to John’s parents before the end of the first week, hoping to establish a productive teacher-parent support team. This teacher understands that, for students with disabilities, behaviors are often symptoms of the disability and thus should not be taken personally. Teacher Four knows John can learn, but both the learning process and outcomes may look different for him. The teacher is flexible in meeting John’s needs and individualizing instruction while still maintaining high standards. Teacher Four understands the individual student’s needs are more important than the lesson plan. In addition, the teacher works to build supports for desired behaviors rather than punishing bad ones. Can you see why the way we interpret our students (our beliefs about their behavior, about them as individuals, and as a group) is so important? There is a quote attributed to Ralf Waldo Emerson I often see on posters in teachers’ classrooms: “Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny.” To the beginning of this quote, I would add, “Sew a belief and you reap a thought.” This principle is as true for us, the teachers, as it is our students. Our beliefs dictate our interventions. Ladder of Inference One way of understanding this principle from a more scientific perspective is through Chris Argyris’ Ladder of Inference. <<Video: Ladder of Inference, TedEd Talk>> The basic idea behind the ladder of inference is that when we take in stimuli from the world around us, our mind processes that information: we filter it, assign it meaning, interpret it, make assumptions about it, develop conclusions, and then act accordingly. Our minds do all of THINKING IN HISTORY 41 this automatically, in a split second. Student behavior is a powerful stimulus for teachers. Whether the behavior is positive or negative, we do the same thing: we filter it, assign it meaning, interpret it, make assumptions about it, and develop conclusions—this is the belief-making process. Finally, we act accordingly. Keep this in mind while you finish the statements below. If I believe a student’s behavior is purposeful, then I am going to: If I believe a student’s behavior has underlying causes that are the result of basic needs not being met, then I am going to: One landmark experiment further illustrates this point. In 1968, psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson took elementary-aged students and administered an intelligence test at the beginning of the year. The researchers then told teachers the names of students (accounting for 20% of the total number who took the test) that were on the brink of enormous cognitive growth and whom, they predicted, would excel that school year. In reality, the researchers randomly selected these names without any regard for their intelligence scores. The teachers were led to believe that this group of students were especially capable but were instructed not to pass the information on to the students themselves. Because the teachers believed it, how do you think it changed their interactions with the students, even on a subconscious level? What do you think happened, eight months later, when the researchers returned and administered another test? The scores of the randomly selected students significantly increased, some even soaring past those whose initial intelligence test really did show potential for growth but were not included in the random selection. This phenomenon is called the Pygmalion Effect—an individual’s performance is influenced by what other believe THINKING IN HISTORY 42 about them.2 Why? Because the teachers’ beliefs dictate how they interact with the students and that, in turn, affects the student’s outcomes. What if, instead, researchers took the same group of randomly selected students and told the teachers their test results showed significantly lower cognitive ability? At the end of the school year, what would the students’ second intelligence test have shown? Now, I am not suggesting that, as teachers, we intentionally treat students differently, play favorites, or discriminate. I am arguing that our beliefs influence our interactions with others even when we do not realize it is happening. Our students are hypervigilant—they pick up on such subtleties and respond accordingly. You might protest, “I care deeply about all my students! I want all my students to succeed.” I believe you, I really do! There is a reason we became teachers. At the same time, we are constantly interpreting student behaviors and acting according to those interpretations. This process is actually part of our jobs, but because it has such a powerful bearing on our own actions, we must be careful that the interpretations are accurate and that we are not inadvertently creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. I once had a mentor teacher give me a piece of invaluable advice. She said, If you find you are having a hard time with a student, the first person to try to change is the person in the mirror. If a student is causing problems in your class (is sleeping though class, is over-participating, is disruptive, has a bad attitude, or is completely disengaged), the first thing teachers should look at is our own beliefs and behaviors.3 Our interpretations of and reactions to students’ behaviors will either perpetuate or mitigate them. We usually cannot change the root cause of a behavior. We can, however, change how we 2 Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobsen. Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development (New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1968). 3 Brenda Burr, Sec Ed 279: Classroom Management (class lecture, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, Winter Semester 2012). THINKING IN HISTORY 43 respond by recognizing there is a root cause (that usually has nothing to do with us) and let the student know they are more than their behaviors and that we see them, the individual human being. The goal of this website is to help increase higher order thinking in our classrooms. To do this, we must first look at and make necessary changes to what we—the teachers—believe about history, about our students, about the learning process, and about the purpose of education. We cannot change our classrooms by trying to change the students. We can, however, change ourselves, model what is expected (not just in an academic sense but the attitudes and dispositions as well), and invite others to follow. Call it a leap of faith, but they will follow because the Pygmalion Effect is real. They will live up to our beliefs. So, I ask again—and this time, really think deeply. Here it is: What do you believe? Understanding our beliefs dictate our interventions, answer the questions below in the Module 1 Notebook. M1 Reflection: Belief’s Reflection 1. What do you believe about students? a. What, in your actions, is evidence of this belief? b. Is there any evidence contrary to this belief? 2. What do you believe about student behavior? a. What, in your actions, is evidence of this belief? b. Is there any evidence contrary to this belief? 3. What do you believe about the purpose of education? a. How does this belief influence how you teach and interact with students? 4. What is your job as a teacher? a. What types of learning/teaching/behavior management fall within your realm of professional responsibility? b. What types of learning/teaching/behavior management fall outside your realm of professional responsibility? 5. What do you believe about student learning and/or grades? THINKING IN HISTORY 44 a. What, in your actions, is the evidence of this belief? b. Is there any evidence contrary to this belief? 6. What do you believe about curriculum? a. What, in your actions, is the evidence of this belief? b. Is there any evidence contrary to this belief? 7. What do you believe about students with disabilities? a. What, in your actions, is the evidence of this belief? b. Is there any evidence contrary to this belief? 8. What is one belief and resulting action you would like to change or tweak? Module 2: What is Learning? Objectives Teachers will: - Reflect on their beliefs about learning. - Understand basic ideas behind the concepts of behavioral and cognitive learning theories, schemas, and transfer as well as and their implications for learning. - Identify ways their own practices work with or against learning processes. <<Module 2 Notebook>> Introduction The underlying reason to increase higher order thinking is to increase learning. We want students to learn more, to learn well, to enjoy the learning process, and to maintain that learning for longer periods of time. In light of this (perhaps idealized) goal, have you ever had a conversation similar to the following? “Ms. Winterton!” Keaton burst into the room absolutely ecstatic. “I passed the test in math today!” “That’s great!” I responded, “What did you get?” “I got a D.” He said it matter-of-factly with a big smile on his face. One of his friends, Jack, shook his head and laughed. “Man, if I got a D, I wouldn’t be so happy about it. My parents would kill me! I have to get As. Sometimes they let me get a B. But never anything lower than that.” “I think passing is something to celebrate.” I smiled at Keaton, not wanting him to feel his victory was less because it wasn’t an A or B. “It shows that you learned what the teacher needed you to learn—that’s basically what a passing grade means.” “Oh, I didn’t learn anything. In fact, I already forgot it all.” Keaton protested. “You… what?” I was shocked. This was my first year teaching and the implications of what Keaton said floored me. “Yea,” Jack piped in, “The same for me. I just learn it long enough to pass the test. Then, forget it. It’s not like we’re ever going to use it again.” “Wait, what?” I was horrified. What was the point of everything I was doing— everything we as teachers do every day, day in and day out, for years on end—if the students weren’t actually learning it? In essence, Keaton and Jack were saying that it is possible to get passing grades—even straight As—without really learning the material. In my mind, if this were true, then grades were meaningless, graduation diplomas were pointless, the whole of our education system was an utter THINKING IN HISTORY 46 waste of time, and my purpose as a teacher was a hoax. Okay, I’m being a bit dramatic, but only slightly. If you have had a similar conversation with students, please know that it isn’t something to get mad at them over—it isn’t their fault. The practice of cramming and purging information is the consequence of our education system as a whole. We are part of that system, to be sure, which is actually a good thing because it means we have the ability to combat it. M2 Reflection: Beliefs about Learning The conversation with Keaton and Jack was a shock to me because their beliefs about learning contradicted mine. Let’s identify some of your beliefs about learning and the learning process. If you have time and access, I highly recommend you also have a conversation with other teachers about these same questions. See in what areas you find consensus and in what areas there is variation. Sometimes brainstorming with others helps us refine our own beliefs, so discussion is a useful exercise. The following questions can be found in the Module 2 Notebook. 1. What is learning? 2. What is learning NOT? 3. How does learning happen? 4. What is the purpose of academic learning? 5. What is the purpose of grades? 6. How accurately do grades reflect student learning? 7. Think about education in general. Is it possible to graduate high school without actually learning what you are expected to learn? a. In what ways do your classroom practices allow this to happen? b. In what ways do your classroom practices combat this? Introduction to Educational Psychology When we ask students to learn, there are unseen mental processes that go on inside their brains. As teachers, we then ask them to demonstrate their learning externally through various types of formal and informal assessments. To really understand what learning entails—the internal processes we can’t see—it is helpful to look at learning through the lens of educational THINKING IN HISTORY 47 psychology. Educational psychology is a branch of psychology concerned with identifying and understanding processes and structures of learning (particularly in the context of formal education). It is basically learning from the inside-out (as opposed to teaching, which is an outside-in perspective). We are going to focus on four theories: behavioral learning theory, cognitive learning theory, schemas, and transfer. A Strong Word of Caution Before we delve into behavioral and cognitive learning theories, I want to make something clear. Teachers are not students’ peers. Teachers are not psychologists. Teachers are not counselors. We do not have the appropriate training to even attempt to fill these rolls, regardless of how well we understand the theories. The theories discussed here are only useful insofar as they help us understand the aspects of learning and behavior that fall within our appropriate realm of influence as teachers. It is unethical to use these theories outside of our professional purview. It is unethical (and illegal) for a teacher to attempt to diagnose or treat students in either an official or unofficial capacity. Use these theories to help you understand students and their learning, but make sure your actions stay within professional boundaries. Behavioral Learning Theory Behavioral learning theory, or behaviorism, defines learning as an enduring and consistent change in behavior due to a specific stimulus.1 The stimulus comes from the environment. For our purposes, let’s define the stimulus as the school, your classroom, your content, other students, and, most importantly, you, the teacher. The learned behavior can include the ability of a student to consistently produce the right answer or to behave a certain way. I have chosen to apply behaviorism in this module almost exclusively to actual student 1 Michael E. Martinez, Learning and Cognition: The Design of the Mind (Ohio: Merrill, 2010), 6. THINKING IN HISTORY 48 behavior, focusing on student-teacher relationships. I’ve done this because, as you will see, sometimes the way to increase learning has nothing to do with what or how content is taught. Sometimes, increasing learning requires the teacher to change the nature of the relationship with the student. It’s the old adage, “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” In behavior learning theory, instead of the word learning, behaviorists use the term conditioning. Something is conditioned, (learned) when it produces an enduring and consistent response. The key here is enduring and consistent. Unconditioned Stimulus-Response Certain behaviors are inherent or instinctive when a particular stimulus is present. For example, a student may fall asleep if the room temperature is just right. The temperature of the room is an unconditioned stimulus and falling asleep is an unconditioned response. They are unconditioned because the connection is natural, even biological (i.e., not learned). We need to be aware of unconditioned stimuli and responses because they do affect our classrooms. If a student constantly falls asleep in your class, but not any other, it could be an unconditioned response to a stimulus such as the room temperature, the proximity of your class to lunchtime, etc. Please be aware that there can be a great deal of variation in unconditioned stimuli and responses between students. Where one person may fall asleep at a particular temperature, another student may be completely unaffected. Can you think of other unconditioned stimuli and responses that affect your classroom and maybe vary from period to period? Neutral Stimulus Some stimuli are neutral—they are not associated with a natural response. When a neutral THINKING IN HISTORY 49 stimulus is present, there is no response because the stimulus has no meaning (conditioned or unconditioned) for the student…yet. Neutral stimuli can be anything—a teacher, a classroom, another student, a subject, etc. Again, the person has no natural (inborn, inherent, biological, etc.) response to these stimuli. Conditioned Stimuli and Responses “But!” you might think, “When I start class I’m often confronted with a room full of groans! Whether it is directed at me or my content doesn’t matter—neither are neutral stimuli.” This is because neutral stimuli can become conditioned (taught) to produce a specific response. Often, the student doesn’t even realize they have been conditioned. Instead, they subscribe their response to something they believe inherent in the stimulus itself (i.e., I hate history because it’s boring). Take the student who falls asleep at a certain room temperature. The temperature is an unconditioned stimulus, falling asleep is an unconditioned response, and your classroom is a neutral stimulus. If your history classroom is always that temperature, then the response, falling asleep, can get associated with your classroom and/or your content. The result looks like this: Neutral stimulus (NS) = History Class Unconditioned stimulus (US) = The temperature of the room Unconditioned response (UR) = Student falls asleep Conditioned stimulus (CS) = History Class Conditioned response (CR) = Student feels sleepy In this example of conditioning, the neutral stimulus (history class) becomes linked, because of repeated exposure, with the unconditioned stimulus (the temperature of the room) and takes on the unconditioned response (falling asleep). Hence, history class becomes a conditioned stimulus, which causes a conditioned response (feeling sleepy). In behaviorism, the student is said to have been conditioned (taught) to fall asleep in history class because of the room THINKING IN HISTORY 50 temperature. This conditioned response can become so powerful that even if you were to change the temperature, the student would still fall asleep. It is also possible the response will expand to include the very thought of history, not just your history class. This is called stimulus generalization. Now, every time this poor student hears the topic of history, they get sleepy—all because of the unfortunate temperature of your room, which we all know is something you have little to no control over! There are other ways we unintentionally condition students that we do have control over and of which we must be more aware. Have you ever heard someone say, “I actually kinda liked history until…” Consider the example of Susan. Susan kind of liked history—until 9th grade. Susan’s 9th grade history teacher was… grumpy. There was no other way to describe him. In fact, students often talked about how they couldn’t figure out why he was a teacher at all. He didn’t seem to like students, or teaching, or even history! From the minute the bell rang the teacher criticized the students: they were being too loud, they didn’t do the assignment right, they weren’t trying hard enough, their answers weren’t quite what he wanted, when he was a student he never would have…. Susan complained to her mom that the teacher yelled a lot and always threatened to punish the whole class if one student did something wrong. Susan’s mom saw her daughter’s frustration but told Susan to just keep doing her best. Susan kept trying but it seemed that no matter what she did, her D+ never changed (until the end of the semester when it suddenly turned into a B-). She resented the effort she put into the class and felt she had no control over the outcome. The next year, Susan’s mom pointed out that the school was offering a history elective taught by a different teacher. Susan bristled at the thought of sitting through another history class, especially if she didn’t have to. What happened here? Why can’t Susan enjoy history just because she enjoys history, regardless of the personality and management style of the teacher? Because, according to behaviorism, Susan was conditioned (taught) differently. In education, we often call this the implicit, or hidden, curriculum. Neutral stimulus (NS) = History Class Unconditioned stimulus (US) = A teacher that lectures, belittles, and threats; slow and non-specific feedback on assignments and assessments Unconditioned response (UR) = Student feels resentful and powerless THINKING IN HISTORY 51 Conditioned stimulus (CS) = History Class Conditioned response (CR) = Student feels resentful and powerless Now, did every student in Susan’s class develop such a strong aversion to history as a result of the teacher? No. The degree of conditioning and stimulus generalization will be different for different students. Some students came out of the class with only a conditioned negative response toward the teacher. Other students’ conditioned responses were limited to just that specific history class. Still other students, such as Susan, were conditioned with a negative response that became generalized to all history classes moving forward. Regardless of the degree, that the conditioning happened at all is a tragedy. The good news is, Susan’s conditioning can be re-conditioned. The bad news it, it requires a lot more work to replace a negative response with a positive one than it took to condition the negative response in the first place. M3 Activity: Identify Conditioning Part 1 How does this apply to you? Think of a student that strikes you as difficult. In the Module 2 Notebook, answer the following questions. 1. What is difficult about them or their behavior? 2. Is it possible their response (their behavior) was conditioned? 3. In your classroom, what is the stimulus for the behavior? 4. Can the stimulus be changed or removed? I like working through these questions because they help teachers realize that bad behavior is not personal. In fact, I argue that students never misbehave simply because they have a personal vendetta against you, the teacher. There is always something deeper behind behavior, and, often, it has nothing to do with you at all. Behavioral learning theory is one tool we can use to uncover and address these issues. Understanding the roots behind a student’s behavior helps us develop empathy for that student and empathy is key to changing the way we think about and approach THINKING IN HISTORY 52 them. Brixton’s Story It is possible to re-condition (re-teach) a student. Meet Brixton, an 8th grader in my US History class. Brixton had a reputation, and it was not a good one. He was a rough kid: he was a bully, he seemed to get angry at the smallest things, was known to yell and swear at teachers in the middle of class, was constantly disruptive, never did any work, never turned anything in, never came prepared, and seemed to just not care. At the beginning of the year, I sent Brixton into the hallway more than once in the name of protecting the learning environment for the rest of my students. One day, while walking through the hall on my prep period, I saw Brixton sitting outside his science class. Another day, while walking though the hall on my lunch break, I saw Brixton sitting outside his English class. Something dawned on me: Brixton was spending the majority of his education sitting in the hallways of the school. Granted, we teachers had ample reasons to send him there, but how was this helping him? How was he gaining the knowledge and skills he needed to be successful in life while sitting in the hallway? Was he learning how to behave properly there? How was this going to affect the rest of his schooling—the rest of his life? It did not bode well for Brixton’s future and I was horrified because I was complicit. To change Brixton’s behavior, first I had to analyze and change my own—the way I approached him. I had to find a way to work with him instead of against him. After a fact-finding mission, I discovered that Brixton had had a hard life and his family experienced an incredible tragedy. Seeking out some background helped me develop empathy that allowed me to change how I interpreted Brixton and his behavior. Since his academics were sitting in single digits anyway, I decided to focus solely on relationship. I wanted Brixton to want to be in my classroom. On paper, I came up with the following plan: THINKING IN HISTORY 53 Before Neutral stimulus (NS) = Any classroom Unconditioned stimulus (US) = Brixton felt isolated and alone, believed everyone hated him Unconditioned response (UR) = Brixton misbehaved Conditioned stimulus (CS) = Any classroom Conditioned response (CR) = Brixton misbehaved and got kicked out After Neutral stimulus (NS) = My classroom Unconditioned stimulus (US) = I build a relationship of trust with Brixton Unconditioned response (UR) = Brixton feels comfortable and safe my classroom, wants to stay Conditioned stimulus (CS) = My classroom Conditioned response (CR) = Brixton does not want to get kicked out, so he doesn’t misbehave This was all well and good, but how was I going to get from A to B? I mean, Brixton was hard— one of the hardest students I’ve ever had. With the help of our school psychologist, we came up with a plan: start noticing Brixton for things other than his negative behaviors (though, to be quite honest, at first, I wasn’t convinced there would be any other behaviors to recognize). When Brixton walked into my room the next day I smiled and said calmly, “Brixton, glad you’re here today.” Then, I ignored every negative behavior the rest of the day. Boy, let me tell you, that was hard! It was like he was trying to get kicked out of class! Actually, according to the school psychologist, he was. At one point just before the bell rang to end class, Brixton slumped down in his seat, exasperated I had not sent him out. I immediately walked over, lightly put my hand on his desk, and quietly said, “Hey, thank you for sitting so nicely.” He promptly swore at me as I walked away. The next day Brixton sat in his desk with a pencil and a pair of scissors. You can imagine the mess he made. I simply said to him, “That is great you brought a pencil to class today!” and then, “Thank you for staying in your seat. That was really great.” On day three, Brixton did not bring a pencil. He did bring the scissors again and started drilling holes in the desk. I had to think about this one because now he was destroying school property. Could I allow it? Ultimately, I decided that I would because, I reasoned, Brixton was THINKING IN HISTORY 54 more important than the desk. I let him drill away and simply commented on how great it was that he stayed in his seat. Day four. Oh, day four. On day four Brixton didn’t stay in his seat. He didn’t bring a pencil or scissors. He did bring his skateboard and spent the entire class practicing his kickflip in the back of the room and daring other students to say something about it. In my head, I was screaming and it took everything to keep the other students’ attention on me. One off comment from another student and the whole situation would have come crumbling down. Fortunately, they did well to follow my lead, for which I will be eternally grateful. I purposefully ended class about ten minutes early, gave the students free time, walked right over to Brixton, and struck up a conversation about skateboards—something I knew absolutely nothing about and had no interest. It was instantly obvious, however, that Brixton was passionate about skateboarding and, though he approached our conversation with caution, it was a positive experience for both of us. That was the turning point for Brixton. Little by little over the next several weeks, he started to follow behavioral norms. Then, he started to participate. I kept noticing what he was doing and always kept our interaction positive. Eventually, we had a solid relationship and Brixton was a full participant in my class. By the end of the first semester, I was even able to correct and redirect him without him exploding. According to the school psychologist, Brixton had learned (been conditioned) that certain behaviors got him sent into the hallway where he didn’t have to do any work. For whatever reason, he already didn’t care about grades so being sent somewhere he wasn’t even allowed to participate was no skin off his nose. Brixton also successfully conditioned his teachers—I misbehave (stimulus), you send me out (response). Our plan was to remove the expected conditioned response and no longer send him to the hallway. When Brixton gave the stimulus THINKING IN HISTORY 55 and got no response, he didn’t know what to do. For a while, his behavior escalated. But, slowly, he was reconditioned that in this classroom, bad behavior got no response while even the tiniest good behavior got a pleasant response. Educator Olympia Delta Flora observed that while most teachers are good teachers, “when you throw in disruptive behavior, it can feel completely outside the scope of the job.” As a result, “many teachers have a philosophy of exclusion—you disrupt, get out.” If we change this to a philosophy “of trust and respect,” where we ask, “How can I help?” instead of demanding, “Get out” then we begin to invest in our kids and set them up for success in their futures.2 In the cases of Susan and Brixton, the conditioning (whether it was conscious on the teacher’s or not) led to a consistent and enduring change in each student’s behavior that impacted their futures. A teacher’s influence does not end at the end of the school day or on the last day of the school year. Whether for good or ill, we have a lasting effect on students that will ripple through much of the rest of their lives. They may not remember our names, but the effect we had on them will be there, regardless. Classical conditioning is a real thing, and we must be careful of it. It is easy to accidently or unconsciously condition students with a negative response. It is hard, and requires a lot of purposeful, directed, and patient work, to re-condition that response to a positive. M3 Activity: Identify Conditioning Part 2 Think of that difficult student again and how your relationship with them plays out in class. These students, like Brixton, both have been conditioned and are doing the conditioning— we condition them and they condition us. The end result is an adversarial relationship in which there is no winner. Think of it in terms of this video where each woman is bound and determined 2 Olympia Delta Flora, Creative Ways to get kids to thrive in school, TED Talk, https://www.ted.com/talks/olympia_della_flora_creative_ways_to_get_kids_to_thrive_in_school THINKING IN HISTORY 56 to teach the other a lesson. After the video, answer the following questions in the Module 2 Notebook. <<Malcom in the Middle: Road Rage Clip>> 1. How is this video representative of the adversarial relationship that can exist between myself and a student I perceive as difficult? 2. How have I been conditioned to respond to this student? 3. How can I be a stimulus that leads the student to a different response? a. Specific actions I will take to be a positive stimulus: b. Specific actions I will avoid: 4. Take a minute and make a plan using the form below. Before Neutral stimulus (NS) = Unconditioned stimulus (US) = Unconditioned response (UR) = Conditioned stimulus (CS) = Conditioned response (CR) = After Neutral stimulus (NS) = Unconditioned stimulus (US) = Unconditioned response (UR) = Conditioned stimulus (CS) = Conditioned response (CR) = A quick note. Behavioral learning theory is not the end-all solution. There are times when it will be helpful and times when it will not. Also, please remember that we are not diagnosing students. This is simply a tool to understand and manage behavior that must be used within professional boundaries. Cognitive Learning Theory Before we get into cognitive learning theory, which deals with mental processes, it is helpful to facilitate an introduction to your brain. The most basic unit of your brain is the brain cell, called a neuron. Neurons communicate with other neurons and the rest of the body through either electrical pulses or chemical signals sent over synapses. Different types of information follow different synaptic paths (like information highways) in different parts of your brain. Interestingly, many cognitive psychologists’ theories about learning have a corresponding theory in neuroscience that is backed by brain imaging, which allows us to see and study these synaptic THINKING IN HISTORY 57 paths in action as a person learns (how cool is that!). Cognitive learning theory (cognitive → cognition → mental action) defines learning as the successful transfer of information from temporary working memory to enduring long term memory.3 In other words, learning is an enduring and consistent change in long term memory. This means learning is a change in the physical structure of the brain involving both neurons and synapsis. If there is no enduring change in long term memory—if there is no change in the structure of the brain—then learning has not happened. In cognitive learning theory, memory is the basis of all learning. Setting aside the different types of memory, what is memory itself? It might be easier to explain what memory is not. Memory is not a video recorder. When we remember something, it is not akin to pushing play on a video and re-watching the entire event exactly as it happened. As we receive input that eventually becomes a memory, it is filtered, chunked, interpreted, and can even be altered during processing. Memory is not so much what happened as it is how I experienced what happened. This is an important distinction, especially in discussing learning. Lesson Scenario: Roanoke. Okay, let’s dip our toes into the more technical side of cognitive learning theory. To do this, imagine that you are teaching the following US History class. Your target for this lesson is: Students will form theories, using evidence, explaining why England’s first attempt at colonization (Roanoke) failed and speculate, using evidence, what happened to the colonists. 1. Welcome to class! I’m going to start by telling you a story—a true story—that ends in a mystery. Your job is to use the evidence to solve the mystery. Here we go. 2. As we discussed, the Spanish are winning the race to explore and colonize the Americas. However, starting today, they have to deal with a new contender: the British. One wealthy British man, Sir Walter Raleigh, got permission from the Queen of England to start a colony. To help convince her to let him try, he says he will pay for everything on 3 Martinez, 56 THINKING IN HISTORY 58 his own. All she has to do is say, “Yes.” What are some things the queen might have worried about in considering Raleigh’s proposal? [Brief class discussion.] You’re right and, in the end, the queen did agree to let Raleigh try. 3. Now, Raleigh has to convince people to leave their lives in England behind and move to the Americas. Based on our previous discussions, why was this an easy sell for some and a hard sell for others? [Brief class discussion.] Excellent. Raleigh was able to find 116 men, women, and children who agreed to move to the New World. Raleigh himself didn’t go. Instead, he puts the whole endeavor in charge of a man named John White, who was to be the colony’s governor. 4. The colonists set sail and arrived off the coast of what is today North Carolina in 1585. On an island, they begin to build their new life, naming the colony Roanoke. There are plenty of trees to build houses, but they do not build a fort because they were able to establish friendly relations with the Native Americans. After a year, the colonists were running out of food, largely because they never bothered to learn how to fish, hunt, or farm. In addition, the colonists were dying from diseases Europeans had never experienced before. In desperation, John White took a ship back to England to get more supplies. He planned on only being gone about eight months, but a war broke out between England and Spain and White wasn’t able to get back to Roanoke for three years! 5. What do you think White finds when he gets back? [Quick class discussion.] Good predictions. When White arrives, no one meets him on the beach. He heads down the path to the town, but the path is overgrown, like no one has walked it for a long time. When the colony comes into view, White is surprised to see that, at some point, a wall was built around the town. However, when he entered the town itself, it was gone. No people. No buildings. Nothing. White explored the area and found only two clues: the word “Croatoan” carved into a wooden post on the fort wall and the letters C-R-O carved into a tree outside of town. From all appearances, the colony simply vanished. 6. Okay, in your groups. If you were White, what would you do next? [Group discussions, pass out sources for next activity, class discussion] 7. Excellent discussions! White eventually gave up his search for the colonists and went back to England. Using the sources I just handed out, you are going to read a few more clues and things historians have since discovered that might help us understand what happened. As you read, use the guide to come up with a theory, based on evidence, that answers the following two questions: What happened to the people in Roanoke? Why, ultimately, did the colony fail? Keep this scenario in mind as I will refer back to it throughout the rest of this module. The Sensory Register The very first memory structure that information passes through is the sensory register. THINKING IN HISTORY 59 Information comes through our senses (our eyes, ears, fingertips, etc.) and lands in the sensory register. Information here does not last very long: about half a second for visual information and two seconds for auditory information. At any given moment, our sensory register is bombarded with information, the vast majority of which is lost. What makes it into the next memory structure, short term memory, are the things to which we pay attention. This is one reason why how we start a lesson is so important. Most educators recommend starting a lesson with a hook (as in paragraph 1 in the Roanoke lesson scenario). Why? Because it signals to the brain, of all the sensory information that a student could pay attention to, what the teacher is saying is important, or, at least, potentially interesting. The hook activates the brain: it ignites neurons that start sending information through the synaptic network, bringing blood to the brain (which increases its ability to function at high levels) and signaling to ears and eyes to pay attention. The brain can then filter out other potentially interfering sensory input (such as Jamie who is noisily chewing her gum or Dante who is fidgeting with a tech deck). Have you ever tried to call a class back to attention after a discussion, activity, or distraction that got a bit rowdy? What happens if you start teaching before you have everyone’s attention? The distracted students’ sensory register filters you out because it is too busy with whatever else the student is doing. They may hear what you are saying, but they are not listening. Whatever is coming out of your mouth passes in and out of their sensory register and is lost (this is what is meant by the phrase, “In one ear and out the other.”). Once you have students’ attention, the rest of the story still filters through the sensory register first, but now, because you have their attention, you also have a foot in the door to students’ working memory, which is the next stop along the memory processing highway. THINKING IN HISTORY 60 Short Term Memory (STM) and Working Memory (WM) What are you thinking about right now? Hopefully, you are thinking about the mind, the brain, about teaching and students, about memory, about how all of this applies to your classroom, and, possibly, about Roanoke. Of course, there are other things you could be thinking about too, even while you read this. You could be thinking about what to make for dinner or what things are still undone on your to-do list (if you weren’t thinking about those things before, there is a good chance you are now!). Whatever you are actively thinking about right now, is what is in your short-term memory. Short term memory (STM), also called working memory (WM), is the cognitive function that relates to your consciousness, what you are currently thinking about, or the memory structure that holds your current thoughts.4 There are two things to know about short term memory. First, STM has a limited duration—somewhere between fifteen and thirty seconds. Now, we can extend the life of information in working memory by rehearsing it to ourselves and/or actively manipulating it. However, without one or both of these actions, the information will fade away. As alluded to, one key to getting and keeping information in STM for longer periods of time is to give students something to think about consistently throughout the lesson. Asking students to listen is not the same as asking them to think. If all they do is listen (even if they are taking notes) what information gets into working memory is largely left up to chance and most of it simply passes through the sensory register and is gone. Here is a sobering statistic: In a typical presentation or lecture where the audience is passively listening, it is estimated that ninety percent of what you say passes through the listener’s sensory register and, even if some of it does 4 Martinez, 40 THINKING IN HISTORY 61 make it into working memory, is gone within thirty seconds of being said.5 Ninety percent gone in thirty seconds. I don’t know about you, but I really want students to remember more than ten percent of what I say! Otherwise, the lesson seems like a waste of my time as well as theirs. How do we combat this? By asking students to work with information—apply it, extend it, relate to it, create something from it, etc. and to do these things throughout the lesson, not just at the end. They don’t have to be big tasks or all-out activities, like paragraph seven in the Roanoke lesson scenario. They can be little things, such as the mini conversation starters in paragraphs two, three, five, and six. While these conversations may seem like fluff, they actually accomplish two things: 1) they ask students to use the information in some way, thereby engaging working memory; and 2) the requirement to engage working memory keeps students’ neurons active, thus maintaining blood flow to their brains and keeping their minds attentive and focused. The second thing to know about short term memory is that it has a limited capacity. While there is some debate about what exactly the capacity of STM is, most psychologists have settled on the number seven, plus or minus two items. This implies two things: 1) if our working memory is bounded between five and nine things, then it is not just limited, it is severely limited; and 2) STM is person-dependent—some people will have a slightly larger capacity (nine items) while others’ will be slightly less (five items). Please keep in mind these numbers are generalizations made from studying neuro-typical students (i.e., excluding those with disabilities and those who are unusually cognitively gifted). It should also be noted that an individual’s working memory capacity may change depending on current circumstances. For example, someone who typically has a higher capacity might only be able to manage four things in 5 David JP Phillips, How to Avoid Death by PowerPoint, TedxStockholmSalon, 4:08, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwpi1Lm6dFo THINKING IN HISTORY 62 working memory if they are currently experiencing a great deal of stress. M2 Activity: Short Term Memory Reflect on the following for a moment. The sensory register is limited. Working memory is limited. All information we want our students to learn has to first pass through both these very limiting memory structures (and we haven’t even reached the “learned” threshold of long term memory yet). What are the implications for our classrooms? I will demonstrate a few in the following video. If you typically read the video transcripts, I highly recommend watching this one as the activities are meant to engage your STM. Reading the transcript would cheat the exercises. Video Transcript. As part of our discussion about the limitations of working memory, I’d like to invite you to do a few exercises with me. If you don’t already have them nearby, pause the video and grab a piece of paper and something to write with. Don’t worry, I’m not going anywhere. Okay, I am going to say a set of letters. I’d like you to remember the letters. Don’t write them as I say them! For now, just listen and retain as many letters, in the correct order, as you can in your working memory. Are you ready? Here they are: L, D, R, B, Y, T, S, W, V, N, P, X, J, Y, H. Did you get them all? Can you remember them all? Go ahead and write the letters on your paper, in the correct order, to the best of your ability. [Pause.] If you want to check your work, here are the letters again: L, D, R, B, Y, T, S, W, V, N, P, X, J, Y, H. How did you do? If you are like most people, you probably correctly remembered between five and seven of the letters—out of fifteen. That would land you somewhere between a 33% and a 47%, if this were a test. Why couldn’t you remember all the letters? After all, they are just letters and the alphabet is something we have been exposed to since our earliest years in elementary school. The problem isn’t the form of the information, it’s the amount of information I threw at you: fifteen is way outside the upper limits of normal working memory. Let’s do another exercise. This time, don’t use your pen and paper at all. I’m going to give you a math problem and I want you to do it completely in your head (no calculators either). Ready? Please add the following numbers: 193,248 + 404,723. I’ll give you a moment to work that out. [Short pause with a smile.] Ready to check your answer? It is: 597,971. How did you do? If you are like me (and most people), you heard that math problem, thought, Nope, and didn’t even attempt it. You just sat and waited for the answer to be given to you, which I did. But, can you repeat the answer back to me? My guess is, because you didn’t even attempt the problem, the answer just wasn’t important. It went in one ear and out the other—right through your sensory register. THINKING IN HISTORY 63 Let’s look at what happened here. In the first exercise, most people will try and successfully remember at least some of the letters. In the second, people generally don’t even try. Why? In both cases, your working memory was overwhelmed. With your working memory overwhelmed, there was no chance the information can make it into long term memory and, thus, no chance for you to succeed. Here’s the trick. I purposefully set you up to fail. I picked fifteen letters on purpose, knowing full-well most people could not keep all fifteen in your working memory, or somehow quickly log them into long term memory, and successfully recall all of them. I also picked two six-digit numbers for the math problem for the same reason. Whereas I set you up for failure on purpose, how often do we unintentionally do the same thing to our students? Take a second and think about it. In fact, print off and write a few thoughts on the reflection page accompanying this video. Go ahead and pause while you do. I’ll wait and then we will wrap up the video together with one last exercise. For many students, a history teacher lecturing endlessly is no different in students’ minds than listening to a random set of letters strung together. There is so much information being thrown at them, there is no way they can retain it all. Too much reading, too complicated reading, too difficult a task, or too long an assignment all have the same effect as the mental math problem I gave you—they tend to shut people down. It’s not that you lacked the skills—chances are you know how to add numbers and have even done mental math successfully in the past. But, the specific problem, and the way I asked you to do it, stops most people in their tracks. Sometimes, the amount of information we present overwhelms our students’ working memory. Other times, it is the way we present it. Let’s do one more exercise. I’m going to say another string of letters and ask, again, that you wait until I say go before you write them down. Don’t write them as I read them. Ready to listen? Here we go: CIA, FBI, CDC, UPS, USPS, NCIS. Okay, go ahead and write the letters down. [Pause.] If you want to check your work, here are the letters again: CIA, FBI, CDC, UPS, USPS, NCIS. How did you do? Probably much better. In fact, most people can remember all the letters. But, how can that be, especially since there were a total of twenty letters this time, which is way outside working memory capacity? What is the difference between this exercise and the first one that only had fifteen letters? If you are thinking of the word, chunking, you are right. This is an example of chunking and it is, in a way, a loophole built into working memory. We will discuss this a little more as you continue reading through this module. Thanks for watching. Activity Debrief: Working Memory 1. What did you think or feel when you were trying to complete the first two exercises in the video? 2. Write down any thoughts or connections you made about teaching, learning, and working memory after completing the first two exercises in the video. 3. Think of ways you might unintentionally undermine students’ working memory in THINKING IN HISTORY 64 your classroom. 4. How might the concepts of working memory discussed in this module apply specifically to students with disabilities that you have now or have had in the past? So, both the sensory register and working memory are limited. There is nothing we can do about this, except adapt our teaching accordingly. As I mentioned in the video, chunking is a tool we can use to cheat working memory’s limited capacity. Now, when we say working memory’s capacity is generally limited to seven, plus or minus two things, what does that mean? Seven what? Herein lies the loophole. As demonstrated in the video, seven does not have to mean seven individual pieces of information, such as seven individual letters. If this were the case, our learning would be severely hindered indeed! Seven means seven meaningful chunks of information that the mind interprets as a single whole. For examples, the letters CIA are three separate letters, but, because these letters have meaning, the mind processes them as one piece of information. Chunking is nothing new to educators, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it. I will, however, make one point. For chunking to be effective, the chunks have to be meaningful to the students. I think this is something we teachers forget. Just because a chunk is meaningful to the teacher does mean it is going to translate that way to students. In addition, chunking is not necessarily an intuitive process for students. Thus, how we present information—how we explicitly chunk information—matters. One more thought about STM and then we’ll move on. Let’s be honest, as history teachers, we love history! We love the stories, we love the interconnectedness of it all, we love the forces of strangeness and familiarity that tug on us as we study the past. History teachers can find justification to teach, and assess students on, just about any element of history because—it’s all history! That means it all falls within our educational responsibility, right? Unfortunately (for THINKING IN HISTORY 65 us, fortunately for our students), no. We will discuss this more later, but I do want to make one point relevant to working memory here. We must be able to pare down the history we teach and focus on our learning targets. Otherwise, we will overwhelm students’ working memory and shut them down. Believe it or not, if we teach less information, our students will learn more (as opposed to trying to teach it all, in which case our students will learn less). In the lesson on Roanoke, are the particulars of the war that broke out between England and Spain that delayed John White’s return to the colony for three years relevant to the story? Well, no… and yes… and no. Is it interesting? Yes. Will students find it interesting? Possibly. Is it necessary for the learning target? Not really. Is it something you should discuss in your lesson? If done briefly, without distracting from the learning target or overwhelming students’ working memory. Is it something should be assessed? No. The same questions, with the same answers, could be asked of details such as the significance of one infant colonist, Virginia Dare, or any number of other related topics not directly connected to the learning target. We cannot teach it all. We cannot assess it all. We must keep in mind the functional limitations of the human mind and try our best not to overwhelm it. More on the topics of content and assessment in Module 5. For now, onward to long term memory! Long Term Memory (LTM) This is the final memory structure. Long term memory (LTM) is our enormous mental storehouse of knowledge. In addition to the vast quantities, LTM also includes countless kinds of knowledge: skills; behavior patterns; personal experiences; people, places, and things both real, imagined, experienced, not experienced, and created by others; general knowledge; specific knowledge; tacit knowledge; and, yes, even curriculum content. As we’ve discussed, your sensory register and your STM are severely limited in both their duration and capacity. The same THINKING IN HISTORY 66 is not true for long term memory. The capacity for long term memory is enormous, and its upper limits have yet to be discovered by either psychologists or neuroscientists (though, after an intense class, students might argue otherwise). Remember the definition of learning according to cognitive learning theorists? Learning is the successful transfer of information from temporary working memory to enduring long term memory. This transfer happens because new information causes an enduring change in the structure of the brain (involving the neurons and synapses). In other words, if information makes it into long term memory, then we can say, with reasonable assurance, that it has been learned. The million-dollar question is, how do we get information to this point? Before we start discussing that, I’m going to deflate you a little. Long term memory is not as cut-and-dry as it seems. There are a few points to keep in mind as we study it. First, as already discussed, memory is not a video recording of our past that we can play back and watch with absolute accuracy and confidence. Regardless of the memory structure in use, there will always be problems with memory. To illustrate this point, I invite you to try the following experiment. M2 Activity: Discuss a Memory Think of a memory, something from your adulthood that you feel you remember really well and a person with whom you share that memory. It could be the memory of your first date with your spouse, an especially enjoyable day you spent with a friend, child, or parent, a milestone such as college graduation, etc. Talk to the person with whom you shared that event and discuss what you remember in as much detail as you can. After you do, answer the following questions in the Module 2 Notebook: 1. What did you remember that they didn’t remember? 2. What did they remember that you didn’t remember? THINKING IN HISTORY 67 3. What is something about the memory on which you disagree? 4. What is something you remembered only after they brought it up? 5. What is something they remembered only after you brought it up? How did your conversation go? Hopefully, it did not cause any arguments (discrepancies in memories have been the impetus of more than one argument in history). The point here is that even adults have discrepancies and holes in memories of important or enjoyable events—things we typically want to remember well. Can we reasonably expect the memories students make in our classrooms to be any better (especially when at least a handful them don’t necessarily want to be there in the first place)? Learning is a form of memory making and memories are not high definition, completely accurate things. A second point about long term memory to keep in mind is just because information makes it here does not guarantee that students will get it right on the exam or that the synaptic path will be strong enough for easy recall. Sorry, but that is the truth. Please, don’t get discouraged and give up. The effort to get here, and to get information here in our students’ minds, is totally worth it. I promise! Stick with me. These two tricky features of long term memory beg a few questions. How do we help students get information into LTM? How do we make sure that information is as accurate as possible? And, how do we help them recall the information when needed? Thankfully, there are a few things we can do to help our students learn better. I will mention three here. Other techniques will be discussed in later modules. First, as we already discussed, we cannot expect our students to learn everything. It sounds counterintuitive, but, as teachers, we must prioritize both the content we teach and the content we assess. Think back to the Roanoke lesson scenario. What information did I leave out to keep the lesson simple and target focused? Are you willing to teach less so that your students THINKING IN HISTORY 68 can learn more? If we overwhelm the mind in the working memory stage, we shoot ourselves in the foot before we even get to long term memory. Second, we must give our students time. Transferring information from short-term memory to long term memory takes time—about a minute per single piece of information (or chunked information). This is called write time.6 Educational psychologist Michael Martinez explained the importance of write time this way, “If a teacher wants an idea to be learned, it would be a mistake to present the idea once, and never mention it again. If an idea is given scant processing time in students’ conscious attention (in working memory), then it has little chance of being learned (in long-term memory).”7 Too many classrooms still operate in what is termed by educational researchers as the “traditional” approach to teaching history. In this approach, classrooms operate more like information dumps, where the teachers deliver the facts in a variety of ways and the students are expected to download al