Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 1383–1410 | Cite as

Historical argument writing: the role of interpretive work, argument type, and classroom instruction

  • Chauncey Monte-SanoEmail author
  • Amina Allen


This study examines whether and how five novice history teachers incorporated writing into their instruction. We analyzed observations, student writing, teacher feedback and interviews, and classroom artifacts from teachers’ preservice program experiences and first 2 years of teaching. All novices included writing in their instruction; however; we find that their use of writing required different types of historical work and arguments. We also found that key aspects of classroom instruction leading up to writing shaped students’ argument writing. The process leading up to writing—including task, prompt, related activities, and how they’re situated in a unit—was a major factor in shaping the purpose of the assignment, the type of argument involved, and the historical work required to complete it. This article builds the case for explicit attention to the historical work and type of argument embedded in assignments, instruction, and student work in order to strengthen history teacher education and research in history classrooms.


History education Social studies education Writing Argumentation 



The authors wish to thank Mary Schleppegrell for her support in considering the linguistic features of teachers’ and students’ work on writing. The authors also wish to thank the novice teachers and their students who participated in this study, and Melissa Cochran, Christopher Budano, and Kristen Harris who worked on this project.


This work was generously funded by a Spencer Foundation Grant.


  1. Bain, R. (2005). They thought the world was flat: Applying the principles of how people learn in teaching high school history. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History in the classroom (pp. 179–214). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, C. (1938). What is historiography? The American Historical Review, 44(1), 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause, and evaluation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. Collingwood, R. G. (1943). The idea of history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cuban, L. (2015). Teaching history then and now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  8. De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De La Paz, S., Monte-Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger, R., & Jackson, C. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015). Arguing to agree: Mitigating my-side bias through consensus-seeking dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Felton, M. K., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 672–683.Google Scholar
  12. Fulkerson, R. (1996). The Toulmin model of argument and the teaching of composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited, argument redefined: Negotiating meaning in the composition classroom (pp. 45–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Adeline.Google Scholar
  14. Greene, S. (1994). The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & MacDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 15(2), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hexter, J. H. (1967). The rhetoric of history. History and Theory, 6(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hexter, J. H. (1971). The history primer. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Holt, T. (1995). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  19. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leinhardt, G. (2000). Lessons on teaching and learning in history from Paul’s pen. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history (pp. 223–245). New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lin, C. H., Chiu, C. H., Hsu, C. C., & Wang, T. I. (2015). The influence of playing a for or against a controversial position on elementary students’ ability to construct cogent arguments. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Mink, L. O. (1987). Historical understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of effective writing instruction in history classrooms: A cross-case comparison of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1045–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monte-Sano, C. (2009). Writing to learn history: Annotations and mini-writes. National history education clearinghouse.
  28. Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and write by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41, 212–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). The Nation’s Report Card: U.S. History. Retrieved May 2003.
  32. National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Retrieved May 2014.
  33. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  34. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Page, R. N. (1991). Lower track classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ravitch, D., & Finn, C. (1987). What do our 17-year-olds know?. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  38. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 229–272). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. VanSledright, B. (2002). Confronting history’s interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1089–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. The History Teacher, 24(4), 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15(1), 25–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Skyline High SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations