Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a detailed analysis of teachers’ use of writing in the last unit observed, please see the additional Online Table available at https://umich.box.com/s/07l9mjtw877bineabtlu58m1vomxo8s9.
Throughout these analyses, we selected the highest-scoring essays because they serve as an indicator of teachers’ expectations and instruction.
Underlining added for emphasis on parts of the essay that show some awareness that other arguments are possible.
References
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.
Becker, C. (1938). What is historiography? The American Historical Review, 44(1), 20–28.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause, and evaluation. London: Continuum.
Collingwood, R. G. (1943). The idea of history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cuban, L. (2015). Teaching history then and now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
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.
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.
Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015). Arguing to agree: Mitigating my-side bias through consensus-seeking dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317–331.
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.
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.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Adeline.
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.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & MacDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 15(2), 273–289.
Hexter, J. H. (1967). The rhetoric of history. History and Theory, 6(1), 3–13.
Hexter, J. H. (1971). The history primer. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Holt, T. (1995). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
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.
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.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552.
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.
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.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mink, L. O. (1987). Historical understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
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.
Monte-Sano, C. (2009). Writing to learn history: Annotations and mini-writes. National history education clearinghouse. http://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/23554.
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.
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.
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.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). The Nation’s Report Card: U.S. History. Retrieved May 2003. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ushistory/itemmapgr12.asp.
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. https://www.socialstudies.org/c3.
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.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175.
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.
Page, R. N. (1991). Lower track classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ravitch, D., & Finn, C. (1987). What do our 17-year-olds know?. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
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.
VanSledright, B. (2002). Confronting history’s interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1089–1115.
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.
Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. The History Teacher, 24(4), 395–412.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15(1), 25–68.
Acknowledgements
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.
Funding
This work was generously funded by a Spencer Foundation Grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Monte-Sano, C., Allen, A. Historical argument writing: the role of interpretive work, argument type, and classroom instruction. Read Writ 32, 1383–1410 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9891-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9891-0