Search results

Understanding what children know about history or social studies has proven illusive. In this think piece, I explore two dilemmas—the representation dilemma and the testing dilemma—that surround the question, “How do we know what children know?” I conclude that teachers, researchers, and policymakers must engage in conversations that put students’ representations of their historical knowledge and understanding at the forefront.

Although standardized testing of K-12 student knowledge and understanding garners considerable attention, few observers profess satisfaction with the assessments in place. In this exploratory paper, we report on the data gathered from an open-ended email survey of small, convenience samples of teachers and researchers. Although no clear consensus about alternative assessments of students’ historical knowing and understanding emerged, we argue that the potential for a consensus exists. Any emergent consensus, however, must be negotiated with several issues in mind.

Over the last few decades, there have been significant developments in history education, key among them being the recommendation for an inquiry approach to history teaching to improve students' ability to think historically. While the idea of historical thinking is widely researched, it appears that it has been approached from a conceptual perspective without a consistent focus on the mode of progression and the outcomes that the historical thinking concepts can achieve.

This paper draws from educational and historical theory and empirical research in history education to propose a framework that specifies the outcomes that a historical thinking classroom activity can aim to achieve.

The paper argues that the systematic deployment and mediation of disciplinary concepts and substantive knowledge are important means for achieving meaningful and relevant outcomes in history teaching. The paper highlights the need for teacher attention not only to historical theory but also to educational theory for an efficient outcomes-based history education.

This paper contributes not only to discussions on historical thinking but also to discussions on the stances of history which have attracted little theoretical discussion and research on their applicability to classroom teaching.

The aim of this paper is to begin a conversation about historicising the public relations (PR) curriculum in universities.

The paper discusses PR history and historiography to identify the underlying ideological and methodological influences. It considers scholarship on PR education, and the inclusion or, more often, the exclusion of history except where it serves to reinforce a narrative of steady, and apparently unproblematic, professional development. The paper reviews the presentation of history in textbooks and discusses the authors' experiences of teaching PR history. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the inclusion of history in the PR curriculum offers an important critical intervention in PR education.

The PR curriculum tends to meet industry expectations around practice and skills in order to develop students as future practitioners. But this paper argues that a more historical and historiographical understanding of PR can develop in students important skills in research, analysis and interpretation. It can also introduce students to working with ambiguity and alternate perspectives. Foregrounding new histories and challenging existing histories introduce students to richer and more complex understandings of PR. It also introduces students to epistemology and ethics, and therefore offers a way to introduce critical thinking into the curriculum.

A more historical understanding of PR develops student skills in research, analysis and interpretation as well as critical thinking.

This paper aims to reconsider the significance of Henry Ford’s claim that “History is more or less bunk”. It argues that this seemingly philistine remark can be understood as a specific historiographical position which informed Ford’s wider worldview, management approach and philosophy of industry.

The paper draws on primary philosophical works, secondary criticism and archival evidence. These sources detail the context in which the claim was made, the ideas underpinning its articulation and the conceptual basis on which Ford’s wider perspectives and contributions to historical experience can be interpreted.

This paper interprets Ford’s claim as a gesture of allegiance to a deeper cultural sensibility that was informed by Ralph Waldo Emerson’s transcendental view of history.

In addition to offering a rereading of Ford’s historiographical position, Emerson’s thought is discussed in relation to Ford’s subsequent “living history” project (Greenfield Village), which is considered the materialisation of his historical and industrial worldview.

This interpretation reveals how a specific historiographical position held by one of the twentieth century’s leading industrialists offers new insights into his wider worldview and philosophy of industry. It contributes to recent studies that challenge taken-for-granted narratives in management history and recent work that has highlighted the influence of transcendental principles on Ford’s philosophy of industry.

Teachers’ understandings of content affect their abilities to develop creative instructional strategies for learning. The authors investigated understandings of United States history among a convenience sample of pre-service and in-service teachers enrolled in social studies methods and multicultural education courses at two institutions of higher learning. They employed a 30-item survey concerning events and topics from all 10 United States historical eras, involving both conventional and revisionist interpretations. The authors found very low percentages of correct responses. Respondents taking more history courses generally answered more items correctly. White students answered more revisionist items correctly than underrepresented students. The findings are generally consistent with previous interpretations of pre-service and in-service teachers’ United States history understandings. The authors provide suggestions for teacher preparation and future research.

Management history has in the past 15 years witnessed growing enthusiasm for “critical” research methodologies associated with the so-called “historic turn”. This paper aims to argue, however, that the “historic turn” has proved to an “historic wrong turn”, typically associated with confused and contradictory positions. In consequence, Foucault’s belief that knowledge is rooted in discourse, and that both are rooted in external structures of power, is used while simultaneously professing advocacy of White’s understanding that history is fictive, the product of the historian’s imagination.

This paper explores the intellectual roots of the historic (wrong) turn in the idealist philosophies of Nietzsche, Croce, Foucault, White and Latour as well as the critiques that have been made of those theories from within “critical” or “Left” theoretical frameworks.

Failing to properly acknowledge the historical origin of their ideas and/or the critiques of those ideas – and misrepresenting all contrary opinion as “positivist” – those associated with the historic (wrong) turn replicate the errors of their theoretical champions. The author thus witnesses a confusion of ontology (the nature of being) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge) and, consequently, of “facts” (things that exist independently of our fancy), “evidence” (how ascertain knowledge of a fact) and “interpretation” (how I connect evidence to explain an historical outcome).

Directed toward an examination of the conceptual errors that mark the so-called “historic turn” in management studies, this article argues that the holding contradictory positions is not an accidental by-product of the “historic turn”. Rather, it is a defining characteristic of the genre.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and illustrate the potential relationships between doctoral students’ life histories and educational experiences and their methodological understanding and assumptions.

The qualitative research design consisted of life-history interviews with nine doctoral researchers in the UK in disciplines relating to the social sciences.

The study indicated that the students’ methodological assumptions may be understood as a socially constructed product of their life histories and academic experiences. Experiences of postgraduate research training were presented as having the potential to unlock the methodological consciousness required to re-frame these experiences, improve understanding and resolve methodological conflict.

This paper provides an insight into the complex nature of the development of methodological understanding and a provocation for considering methodological becoming through the lens of socialisation. This may have utility for both doctoral students and educators.

The article presents a historical narrative model designed to encourage analytical thinking. My historical narrative inquiry model (a) teaches procedural knowledge (the process of “doing” history); (b) enhances interpretative skills; (c) cultivates historical perspectives based upon evidentiary history; and (d) encourages student authorship of historical narratives. The instructional model emphasizes small- and large-group activities, including oral presentations, discussions about primary documents, and considerations relative to the creation of written history. Students generate their own historical narratives in order to articulate their perspectives. The purpose of the model is to facilitate students’ historical understandings by developing more empathetic perceptions of the people of the past.

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings from a study that explored the use of art and visual production as a means through which 20 third-graders developed and represented their social studies understandings. The author describes the ways the process of visual production and the finished products illustrate the nature of the students' social studies learning.

The project was grounded in an inductive qualitative approach privileging student voice. This paper reports analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources, including photographs of students' projects, digital recordings of the visual productions and student interviews, as well as field notes and informal teacher conversations.

Results suggest that in the process of visual production and in their final pieces, students moved in fluid ways between making sense of new knowledge, developing important social studies skills, and representing their knowledge. More specifically, students used historical evidence to present humanized versions of history through personalized narratives. These outcomes suggest that the integration of art and visual production can be a valuable and effective way for students to develop and apply social studies skills as well as represent their understanding.

This study provides insight into how young children can use art and visual production to develop social studies skills, make sense of new knowledge, and represent their learning, contributing knowledge on an understudied topic and population in social studies education.