Page 78 - Balancing between the present and the past

Chapter 3
One study limitation is that we conducted exploratory research that included only 36 students in our thinking aloud protocols and focused on only one historical topic with one related assignment. The instrument’s scenario was also fictional. Thus, more research on how students perform HPT when addressing real historical sources or other tasks about agents’ decisions is needed. Furthermore, in the quantitative portion of our study, we included only four questions about students’ chronological knowledge to measure prior knowledge. As this is a further limitation, future research should focus on the relationship between one’s ability to perform HPT and one’s prior knowledge and should include more questions on different types of historical knowledge to confirm the relationship we found when analyzing the thinking-aloud protocols. Another limitation is that our mean HPT score for the qualitative sample was slightly higher (3.39) than the mean HPT score for the quantitative sample (3.20). Furthermore, as we only included pre-university students in our quantitative sample, it would be interesting to compare their HPT ability with students’ HPT abilities at other educational levels and to examine possible differences in students’ specific needs to successfully perform HPT.
Finally, we discuss some practical implications for the teaching of history. Although the majority of the students in our study did not view the past from a present-oriented perspective, six students did do so. To decrease students’ presentism, Huijgen and Holthuis (2015) presented a sample lesson about the rise of Hitler that was shaped by the theory of constructive controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Teachers could use these types of exercises to evaluate students’ presentism and to scaffold historical contextualization.
Furthermore, our study, similar to those of Levstik (2011) and Havekes et al. (2012), indicated that building extensive and different frames of reference could help students perform HPT. However, as Reisman and Wineburg (2008) noted, it does not result in the automatic application of historical knowledge, as HPT also requires a deep understanding of the difference between past and present. Accordingly, this is not an easy task for teachers, as Levstik and Groth (2002) noted. However, lessons combining historical contextualization with historical empathy tasks could promote this understanding. Recently, Endacott and Pelekanos (2015) presented a good example of such a lesson when teaching a unit on ancient Athens. As shown in this study, HPT is a complex process, but structural attention and classroom practice can promote students’ understanding of the past and help them prepare to participate in a civic society.
76