Abstract
Recent research has repeatedly raised the question of how the authenticity of learning material affects learning outcomes. This question is particularly important for history education: researchers continue to debate whether teachers should use historians’ authentic working material (e.g., multiple primary sources and historical accounts) or less and inauthentic material which has been revised for different and potentially didactical reasons (e.g., material from historical culture and history textbooks). We conducted a quasi-experimental study to examine whether authentic material promotes the quality of students’ written historical arguments. Eleventh- and 12th-grade students (N = 161) were given instructional materials representing different degrees of domain-specific authenticity in three experimental conditions: the authentic condition (print documents: primary sources and historical accounts), the less authentic condition (audio documents: written original documents spoken by actors), and the inauthentic condition (a history textbook: chapters based on original documents) to work with. They were further instructed to answer a historical question in an argument-writing task using the material at hand. We assessed the quality of the students’ written historical arguments based on a coding scheme and by rating the texts, and measured students’ perception of domain-specific authenticity. The results indicate that the historical arguments of students in the authentic experimental condition were of higher quality than in both other conditions. However, there were also differences in how students experienced and worked with the given materials. We discuss these findings with regard to the authenticity of the instructional material and its presentation format, in multiple documents or a single document, in the context of history education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asterhan, C., & Schwarz, B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458.
Bertram, C., Wagner, W., & Trautwein, U. (2017). Learning historical thinking with oral history interviews: a cluster randomized controlled intervention study of oral history interviews in history lessons. American Educational Research Journal, 54(3), 444–484. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217694833.
Betz, A., Flake, S., Mierwald, M., & Vanderbeke, M. (2016). Modelling authenticity in teaching and learning contexts. A contribution to theory development and empirical investigation of the construct. In C.-K. Looi, J. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, volume 2 (pp. 815–818). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
BR [= Bayrischer Rundfunk/Bavarian Radio]. (2017). Die Quellen sprechen: Eine dokumentarische Höredition [The sources speak: a documentary audio edition]. Retrieved from: http://die-quellen-sprechen.de/
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Budke, A., & Meyer, M. (2015). Fachlich argumentieren lernen – Die Bedeutung der Argumentation in den unterschiedlichen Schulfächern [Learn to argue professionally - The importance of reasoning in different school subjects]. In A. Budke, M. Kuckuck, M. Meyer, F. Schäbitz, K. Schlüter, & G. Weiss (Eds.), Fachlich argumentieren lernen: Didaktische Forschungen zur Argumentation in den Unterrichtsfächern (pp. 9–28). Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. Continuum discourse series. London: Continuum.
De La Paz, S., Felton, M., Monte-Sano, C., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., Deogracias, J. S., & Hoffman, B. P. (2014). Developing historical reading and writing with adolescent readers: Effects on student learning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 42(2), 228–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.908754.
Engeln, K. (2004). Schülerlabors: Authentische, aktivierende Lernumgebungen als Möglichkeit, Interesse an Naturwissenschaften und Technik zu wecken [Out-ofschool labs: authentic and activating learning settings in order to develop interest in science and techniques]. Berlin: Logos.
Goldberg, T., & Savenije, G. M. (2018). Teaching Controversial Historical Issues. In S. A. Metzger & L. M. A. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (pp. 503–526). (The Wiley Handbooks in Education). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D. (2008). Living and dormant collective memories as contexts of history learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.005.
Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., et al. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: a conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741.
Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., & Martens, R. L. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computer in Human Behavior, 21(3), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.028.
Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. The Thinking series. Owensboro, Ky.: Owensboro Volunteer Recording Unit.
Honig, M., & Porat, D. (2019). Reading biographical texts. A gateway to historical disciplinary reading. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 4(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1567821.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt College Publishers.
Köller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2000). Zum Zusammenspiel von schulischem Interesse und Lernen im Fach Mathematik. Längsschnittanalysen in den Sekundarstufen I und II. [The interaction between school interest and learning in the subject mathematics]. In U. Schiefele & K. Wild (Eds.), Interesse und Lernmotivation – Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung, Förderung und Wirkung (pp. 163–182). Münster: Waxmann.
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: a guide to methods, practice & using software. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: Sage.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2000). Progression in historical understanding among students age 7–14. In P. N. Stearns & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history. National and international perspectives (pp. 199–222). New York: New York Univ. Press.
Lévesque, S. (2009). Thinking historically: educating students for the twenty-first century. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
Maggioni, L. (2010). Studying epistemic cognition in the history classroom: cases of teaching and learning to think historically. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1903/10797.
Mierwald, M. (2017). Die “NS-Volksgemeinschaft” als Lerngegenstand im Rahmen der Wissenschaftsvermittlung im Schülerlabor. Theoretische Annahmen, empirische Einsichten und pragmatische Ausblicke [The “NS-Volksgemeinschaft” (people’s community) as a learning object in the context of science communication in an out-of-school lab. Theoretical assumptions, empirical insights and pragmatic perspectives]. In U. Danker & A. Schwabe (Eds.), Die NS-Volksgemeinschaft. Zeitgenössische Verheißung, analytisches Konzept und ein Schlüssel zum historischen Lernen? (pp. 157–174). Göttingen: V&R Unipress. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737005449.157.
Mierwald, M. (2020). Historisches Argumentieren und epistemologische Überzeugungen. Eine Interventionsstudie zur Wirkung von Lernmaterialien im Schülerlabor [Historical argumentation and epistemological beliefs. An intervention study on the effects of instructional materials in an out-of-school lab]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Mierwald, M., & Brauch, N. (2015a). Historisches Argumentieren als Ausdruck historischen Denkens. Theoretische Fundierung und empirische Annäherungen [Historical argumentation as an expression of historical thinking. Theoretical foundation and empirical approaches]. Zeitschrift für Geschichtsdidaktik (“Sprache und historisches Lernen”), 14, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.13109/zfgd.2015.14e.1.104.
Mierwald, M., & Brauch, N. (2015b). “Ich denke, dass Anne Franks Tagebücher eigentlich eine sehr gute Quelle sind, da…” – Zur Konzeptionalisierung und Förderung des historischen Argumentierens im Fach Geschichte [“I think Anne Frank’s diaries are actually a very good source because...” - On the conceptualisation and promotion of historical argumentation in the subject of history]. In A. Budke, M. Kuckuck, M. Meyer, F. Schäbitz, K. Schlüter, & G. Weiss (Eds.), Fachlich argumentieren lernen. Didaktische Forschungen zur Argumentation in den Unterrichtsfächern (pp. 215–229). Münster: Waxmann.
Mierwald, M., Seiffert, J., Lehmann, T., & Brauch, N. (2016). “Do they affect it all?” - Measuring epistemological beliefs in history education and their relationship to students’ argumentation skills and future history teachers’ planning skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), 11.04.2016. Washington, DC, USA.
Mierwald, M., Seiffert, J., Lehmann, T., & Brauch, N. (2017). Fragebogen auf dem Prüfstand. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung und Weiterentwicklung eines bestehenden Instruments zur Erfassung epistemologischer Überzeugungen in der Domäne Geschichte [Questionnaires under scrutiny: A contribution to researching and further developing an existing tool for surveying epistemological beliefs in the field of history]. In M. Waldis & B. Ziegler (Eds.), Forschungswerkstatt “Geschichtsdidaktik 15, Beiträge zur Tagung, Geschichtsdidaktik empirisch 15” (Reihe Geschichtsdidaktik heute) (pp. 177–190). Bern: hep-Verlag.
Mierwald, M., Lehmann, T., & Brauch, N. (2018). Zur Veränderung epistemologischer Überzeugungen im Schülerlabor: Authentizität von Lernmaterial als Chance der Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlich angemessenen Überzeugungshaltung im Fach Geschichte? [On the change of epistemological beliefs in the student laboratory:Authenticity of learning material as a chance to develop a scientifically appropriate belief in the subject of history?]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0019-7.
Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of historical writing instruction: a comparative case study of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1045–1079. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208319733.
Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: an exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.481014.
Monte-Sano, C. (2016). Argumentation in history classrooms: a key path to understanding the discipline and preparing citizens. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208068.
Monte-Sano, C. (2017). Bridging reading and writing: using historians’ writing processes as clues to support students. In G. Andrews & Y. Wangdi (Eds.), The role of agency and memory in historical understanding: revolution, reform, and rebellion (pp. 247–265). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12450445.
Monte-Sano, C., & Reisman, A. (2015). Studying historical understanding. In L. Corno & E. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 281–294). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Implementing a disciplinary-literacy curriculum for US history: learning from expert middle school teachers in diverse classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 540–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.904444.
Nachtigall, V., Rummel, N., & Serova, K. (2018). Authentisch ist nicht gleich authentisch. Wie Schülerinnen und Schüler die Authentizität von Lernaktivitäten im Schülerlabor einschätzen. [Authentic does not equal authentic—how students evaluate the authenticity of learning activities in an out-of-school lab]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0020-1.
Nokes, J. D. (2013). Building students’ historical literacies: learning to read and reason with historical texts and evidence. New York: Routledge.
Nokes, J. (2017). Historical reading and writing in secondary school classrooms. In M. Carretero, S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 553–571). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Nokes, J., & De La Paz, S. (2018). Writing and Argumentation in History Education. In S. A. Metzger & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (pp. 551–579). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill series in psychology New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Ed.
Pandel, H.-J. (2013). Geschichtsdidaktik: Eine Theorie für die Praxis. [History didactics: a theory for practice] Schwalbach/Ts: Wochenschau.
Pawek, C. (2009). Schülerlabore als interessefördernde außerschulische Lernumgebungen für SchülerInnen und Schüler aus der Mittel- und Oberstufe. [Reach out Labs as extracurricular learning setting promoting interest for students from middle and high school]. (doctoral dissertation). Universitiy of Kiel: Kiel.
Paxton, R. J. (1999). A Deafening Silence: History textbooks and the students who read them. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069003315.
Paxton, R. J. (2002). The influence of author visibility on high school students solving a historical problem. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 197–248. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2002_3.
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design. The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Rhetoric, knowledge, and society. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.
Reisman, A. (2012). The ‘Document-Based Lesson’: bringing disciplinary inquiry into high school history classrooms with adolescent struggling readers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 233–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.591436.
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478.
Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_3.
Rüsen, J. (2013). Historik: Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft. [Theory of History] Köln: Böhlau.
Salmerón, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018). Effects of reading real versus print-out versions of multiple documents on students’ sourcing and integrated understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.002.
Schönemann, B., & Thünemann, H. (2010). Schulbucharbeit: Das Geschichtslehrbuch in der Unterrichtspraxis [Textbook work: the history textbook in classroom practice]. Schwalbach Ts.: Wochenschau.
Schraw, G. (2013). Conceptual integration and measurement of epistemological and ontological beliefs in educational research. ISRN Education, 2013(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/327680.
Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. J. (2016). Dialogue, argumentation and education: history, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seixas, P. (2015). Translation and its discontents: key concepts in English and German history education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(4), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1101618.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5.
Stoel, G. L., van Drie, J. P., & van Boxtel, C. A. M. (2016). The effects of explicit teaching of strategies, second-order concepts, and epistemological underpinnings on students’ ability to reason causally in history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000143.
Toulmin, S. E. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Van Drie, J., & Van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1.
Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., & van der Linden, J. L. (2006). Historical reasoning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Rutgers invitational symposium on education series. Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 265–296). New York: Routledge.
Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., & Braaksma, M. (2014). Writing to engage students in historical reasoning In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), P. D. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. C. Kirkpatrick & C. Gelati (Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 28, Writing as a learning activity (pp. 94–119). Leiden: Brill.
Van Drie, J., Braaksma, M., & van Boxtel, C. (2015). Writing in history: effects of writing instruction on historical reasoning and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(1), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.06.
VanSledright, B. A., & Limón, M. (2006). Learning and teaching social studies: a review of cognitive research in history and geography. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 545–570). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Voss, J. F., & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding while writing essays in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)89733-9.
Waldis, M. (2016). Erzählung oder Argumentation? Zum Einfluss von Textgenre, Aufgabenprompt und Materialauswahl auf das historische Erzählen. [Narration or argumentation? The influence of text genre, prompts, and material on historical telling] In S. Keller & C. Reintjes (Eds.), Aufgaben als Schlüssel zur Kompetenz. Didaktische Herausforderungen, wissenschaftliche Zugänge und empirische Befunde (1st ed., pp. 237–260). Münster, New York: Waxmann Verlag.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. The Cambridge language assessment series. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wiley, J., & Ash, I. (2005). Multimedia learning of history. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 375–391). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of ‘playing historian’ on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199611)10:7<63::AID-ACP438>3.0.CO;2-5.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: a study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73.
Wineburg, S. (2000). Making historical sense. In P. N. Stearns & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history. National and international perspectives (pp. 306–325). New York: New York Univ. Press.
Wissinger, D. R., & La Paz, S. de. (2016). Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ written historical arguments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000043
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Marcel Mierwald. Faculty of History, Research Unit: History Didactics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany. E-mail: marcel.mierwald@rub.de
Current themes of research:
Learning and teaching of history, argumentation skills, multiple documents use skills, epistemological beliefs, and learning with (digital) media
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Betz, A., Flake, S., Mierwald, M., & Vanderbeke, M. (2016). Modelling authenticity in teaching and learning contexts. A contribution to theory development and empirical investigation of the construct. In C.-K. Looi, J. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, Volume 2 (pp. 815-818). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Mierwald, M., Seiffert, J., Lehmann, T. & Brauch, N. (2016, April): “Do they affect it all?” - Measuring epistemological beliefs in history education and their relationship to students’ argumentation skills and future history teachers’ planning skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), 11.04.2016, Washington, DC, USA.
Mierwald, M., Lehmann, T., & Brauch, N. (2018). Zur Veränderung epistemologischer Überzeugungen im Schülerlabor: Authentizität von Lernmaterial als Chance der Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlich angemessenen Überzeugungshaltung im Fach Geschichte? [Changing epistemological beliefs in student labs: Authentic learning materials as a chance to foster the development of academically adequate beliefs in the domain of history?] Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46(3), 279-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0019-7
Thomas Lehmann. Faculty of Pedagogy and Educational Sciences, Research Unit: Learning, Instruction, and Educational Psychology, University of Bremen, Universitäts-Boulevard 11/13, 28359 Bremen, Germany. E-mail: tlehmann@uni-bremen.de
Current themes of research:
Knowledge integration, mental models, self-regulated learning, decision making, problem solving, and instructional design
Lehmann, T. (Ed.) (2020). International Perspectives on Knowledge Integration: Theory, Research, and Good Practice in Pre-service Teacher and Higher Education. Leiden, Boston: Brill | Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004429499
Seel, N. M., Lehmann, T., Blumschein, P., & Podolskiy, O. A. (2017). Instructional Design for Learning. Theoretical Foundations. Rotterdam, Boston: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-941-6
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Lehmann, T., Hähnlein, I., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.051
Lehmann, T., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Schmidt-Borcherding, F. (2020). Fostering integrated mental models of different professional knowledge domains: Instructional approaches and model-based analyses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 905–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09704-0.
Lehmann, T., Rott, B., & Schmidt-Borcherding, F. (2019). Promoting pre-service teachers' integration of professional knowledge: effects of writing tasks and prompts on learning from multiple documents. Instructional Science, 47(1), 99-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9472-2
Mierwald, M., Lehmann, T., & Brauch, N. (2018). Zur Veränderung epistemologischer Überzeugungen im Schülerlabor: Authentizität von Lernmaterial als Chance der Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlich angemessenen Überzeugungshaltung im Fach Geschichte? [Changing epistemological beliefs in student labs: Authentic learning materials as a chance to foster the development of academically adequate beliefs in the domain of history?] Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46(3), 279-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0019-7
Wäschle, K., Lehmann, T., Brauch, N., & Nückles, M. (2015). Prompted journal writing supports preservice history teachers in drawing on multiple knowledge domains for designing learning tasks. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(4), 546-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1068084
Nicola Brauch. Faculty of History, Research Unit: History Didactics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany. E-mail: nicola.brauch@rub.de
Current themes of research:
Learning and teaching of history, measuring of historical thinking competencies, and teacher and teaching quality
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Brauch, N. (2011). Fostering competencies of historical reasoning based on cognitive activating tasks in schoolbooks?: Considerations towards a conceptual change from text to task books in history learning rnvironments. In E. Matthes & S. Schütze (Eds.), Aufgaben im Schulbuch [tasks on textbooks] (pp. 237-253). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Mierwald, M., Lehmann, T., & Brauch, N. (2018). Zur Veränderung epistemologischer Überzeugungen im Schülerlabor: Authentizität von Lernmaterial als Chance der Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlich angemessenen Überzeugungshaltung im Fach Geschichte? [Changing epistemological beliefs in student labs: Authentic learning materials as a chance to foster the development of academically adequate beliefs in the domain of history?] Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46(3), 279-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0019-7
Wäschle, K., Lehmann, T., Brauch, N., & Nückles, M. (2015). Prompted journal writing supports preservice history teachers in drawing on multiple knowledge domains for designing learning tasks. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(4), 546-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1068084
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 45 kb)
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mierwald, M., Lehmann, T. & Brauch, N. Writing about the past: the impact of different authentic instructional material on students’ argument writing in history. Eur J Psychol Educ 37, 163–184 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00541-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00541-5