Page 116 - Balancing between the present and the past

Chapter 5
5.5.2 Category scores
To examine possible differences between the categories, we present the observers’ mean category scores (based on two lessons) in Table 18. The highest scores were achieved in not using anachronisms and presenting the past as progress (Category 7, mean score = 3.59) and reconstructing a historical context (Category 1, mean score = 2.18). The observers almost never noticed the use of anachronisms (i.e., something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological context) or that the past was presented as progress. The lowest mean category scores were achieved in enhancing the use of the historical context to explain historical events (Category 6, mean score = 1.24) and enhancing historical empathy among students (Category 4, mean score = 1.25). Interestingly, as displayed in Table 18, Bob and Kim achieved the highest scores in all categories, which demonstrate the engagement of the students in historical contextualization (Categories 2, 4, and 6). Compared to the other teachers, they seemed to engage students more when reconstructing a historical context, promoting historical empathy, and explaining historical events. Lisa is also interesting because she obtained the highest scores for the categories 1, 3, and 5 (demonstrating historical contextualization) but the lowest scores in the same categories when engaging students in historical contextualization (Categories 2, 4, and 6).
5.5.3 Differences between demonstrating and engaging
For the categories “Reconstructing the historical context,” “Enhancing historical empathy,” and “Using the historical context to explain historical events,” we made a distinction between the items focusing on demonstrating historical contextualization by a teacher (Categories 1, 3, and 5) and items focusing on engaging students in historical contextualization processes (Categories 2, 4, and 6). Table 19 present the differences between demonstrating and engaging students in historical contextualization processes. As expected, the teachers paid less attention to engaging students in historical contextualization processes in the lessons.
5.5.4 Promoting historical contextualization
For each category, we use examples from the videotaped lessons to illustrate our findings in more detail. The examples provide more qualitative insights into how historical contextualization was promoted by the teachers, in the missed opportunities of the teachers, and in the differences between high and low scoring teachers.
114