The field of social studies has experienced a flurry of research activity in the historical thinking literature that has added to our epistemological understandings (VanSledright, 2002; Wineburg, 2001), broadened the critique of teaching history (Lowenthal, 2000; Wills, 1996), and thus, elevated the importance of historical thinking for K-12 students (Seixas, 1998).\u00a0 Concurrently, scholars (Tally & Goldenberg, 2005) have argued that digitized primary sources can allow students and teachers to engage in primary source research with the ultimate goal of enhancing student learning and encouraging historical thinking, in addition to providing opportunities for the critical evaluation of historical events, circumstances, and phenomena.\u00a0 The digitization of primary sources intersects the research foci of historical thinking and technology integration, and thus serves as the basis of this review.<\/p>\n
Historical Thinking and Digitized Resources<\/strong><\/p>\n Generally speaking, historical thinking is considered as the ability to reflect, synthesize, and construct understandings of history based on evidence.\u00a0 As VanSledright (2002) stated, \u201cLearning history is no simple task\u2026it propels you into intellectual situations where there is considerable tension between your need to interpret, imagine, and to understand what things were like back then\u201d (p. 5).\u00a0 The challenge in learning to think historically then encompasses an evidentiary trail.<\/p>\n Seixas (1993), in his work on the funds of historical knowledge in a high school classroom, argued on behalf of at least three essential elements in examining historical evidence.\u00a0 These elements include understanding what events in the past are important and why (significance), how people know about the past (epistemology\/rules of evidence), and an understanding of the decisions people in the past have made via notions of agency, empathy, and moral judgment.\u00a0 Accompanying these notions are historians\u2019 practices of sourcing.\u00a0 For example, VanSledright (2004) listed the processes of identification, attribution, perspective judgment, and reliability assessment in examining any primary source.<\/p>\n As Wineburg (2001) explained, \u201cAchieving mature historical thought depends precisely on our ability to navigate the uneven landscape of history, to traverse the rugged terrain that lies between the poles of familiarity and distance from the past\u201d (p. 5).\u00a0 As a result a great deal of research attention has focused on how students, teachers, and preservice teachers have engaged in the use of historical thinking.\u00a0 Accompanying the research on students\u2019 understandings of historical thinking is work that examines how students and teachers make sense of historical thinking practices (Barton, 2001; Levstik & Barton, 2008).<\/p>\n For example, Terrie Epstein (2009) examined the complexity of race and historical thinking in diverse classrooms.\u00a0 Stearns, Seixas, and Wineburg (2000) provided a collection of studies that revealed the interplay between historical thinking and the importance of sociocultural context.\u00a0 The work of Levstik and Barton (2008) has been particularly instrumental in promoting the use of historical thinking in elementary classrooms.\u00a0 Finally, a great deal of energy has been dedicated toward understanding how preservice teachers make sense of teaching history, and how their sense-making can be dramatically altered through the use of historical thinking (Doppen & Tesar, 2008; Fragnoli, 2005; Seixas, 1998; Yeager & Wilson, 1997).<\/p>\n Correspondingly, there is ample work indicating that the use of digital resources allows for constructing learning environments that engage learners in interpreting information and making meaning through historical thinking (Bolick & McGlinn, 2004; Endacott, 2010; Sandwell, 2004; Schrum, 2001).\u00a0 Bolick (2006) for example, argued that not only are primary sources now available to all learners, but that hypertext built into digital archives adds to their educational value by providing learners a chance to individualize their experiences by linking up primary sources in ways that are personally meaningful.\u00a0 She added that in the social studies classroom, through the use of digitized primary sources, teachers have the opportunity to support students\u2019 own interpretations and construction of knowledge.<\/p>\n Similarly, McGlinn\u2019s (2007) study of teachers\u2019 use of a digital library concluded that teachers were able to capitalize on their students\u2019 technology skills and present multiple perspectives in teaching history, revealing potentiality of transformative practices, but were still limited by the typical constraints of the standard curriculum and equipment availability (see also Friedman, 2008).<\/p>\n The challenge at hand, therefore, is twofold.\u00a0 First, social studies teachers must recognize a different epistemological assumption.\u00a0 Saye and Brush (2007) for example, explained that \u201cto engage in historical thinking [teachers] must perceive knowledge as uncertain and constructed by the knower\u201d (p. 6).\u00a0 However, given teachers\u2019 prior experiences with schooling, this \u201cuncertainty\u201d can make the nature of historical thinking seem particularly unnatural (Wineburg, 2000).<\/p>\n Second, beyond the apparent ubiquity of technologies in classrooms, teachers must recognize the ways in which technology can transform pedagogy.\u00a0 Hughes (2005) for example, argued that the \u201cpower to develop innovative tech-supported pedagogy lies in the teacher\u2019s interpretation of the newly learned technology\u2019s value for supporting instruction and learning in the classroom\u201d (p. 277).\u00a0 Thus, when in-service and preservice teachers are given opportunities to engage in historical thinking through the use of digitized primary sources, researchers are driven to examine what understandings emerged from their experiences.<\/p>\n PCK and Technology Integration<\/strong><\/p>\n The notion of teacher cognition and the use of historical thinking and digitized primary sources have prompted social studies researchers to employ Shulman\u2019s (1986) work on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).\u00a0 In shifting the field toward the complexity of teacher thinking, he identified multiple domains of teacher knowledge, arguing that PCK involves \u201cthe ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others\u201d (p. 9).\u00a0 In this sense, Shulman highlighted those decisions that teachers encounter when attempting to make content teachable.<\/p>\n Several studies have underscored teachers\u2019 evolving PCK as they access digital history archives in the teaching of historical inquiry.\u00a0 Bolick (2006), for example, in her case study of middle and secondary teachers\u2019 experiences with a digital history inquiry project, showed that teachers were engaged in new ways of doing historical inquiry, accessing resources (e.g., primary sources), and practicing student-centered approaches via the development of the assigned hypertext document.\u00a0 However, their \u201cdisequilibrium\u201d was perhaps a key event experienced by all teachers not familiar with \u201cdoing history\u201d or doing history in constructivist contexts (e.g., development of hypertext documents).<\/p>\n Additionally, Swan and Hicks (2007) found that teachers\u2019 use of digitized primary sources was dependent upon PCK as well as a sense of purpose in teaching history.\u00a0 Their qualitative case study of three teachers concluded that the use of technology was highly dependent upon teachers\u2019 deliberation, reflection, and attention to notions of citizenship as they are embedded within the teaching and learning of history.<\/p>\n Both studies demonstrated the interplay between PCK and how, when, and if teachers add technology as an interdependent layer to their teaching knowledge base.\u00a0 Regardless, teachers\u2019 multiple domains of knowledge (e.g., content, pedagogy, PCK) continue to be the focal point of attention in gaining a greater understanding of how teachers mediate new understandings of technology.<\/p>\n Purpose of the Study<\/strong><\/p>\n Through examining preservice social studies teachers\u2019 use of digitized historical documents, this study attended to how technology is viewed within the realm of teacher knowledge.\u00a0 In coining the phrase \u201ctechnology enhanced traditionalism,\u201d DeWitt (2004) described the dilemma of how social studies educators can reap the benefits of technology by creating meaningful new practices rather than simply replicating existing ones that may be less than meaningful.\u00a0 In response, this qualitative case study of preservice teachers\u2019 understandings of digitized historical documents in the teaching of historical thinking provides insights into how the field of social studies is assessing the importance of technology integration and its place within PCK.<\/p>\n In order \u201cto facilitate innovative subject matter teaching with technology, capitalizing on connections with subject matter of pedagogical content knowledge\u201d (Hughes, 2005, p. 279), we framed our study within the aforementioned literature.\u00a0 Hughes stated that the \u201cpower to develop innovative technology-supported pedagogy lies in a teacher\u2019s interpretation of the newly learned technology\u2019s value<\/em> for supporting instruction and learning in the classroom\u201d (p. 277, emphasis added).\u00a0 In an effort to examine these notions, our primary research question asked, \u201cIn what ways do secondary preservice social studies teachers use historical thinking and evaluate websites that contain digitized primary sources?\u201d<\/p>\n Method of Inquiry<\/strong><\/p>\n Given the assumptions regarding the importance of digitized primary resources in social studies education, examining the understandings of preservice teachers attends to valuable questions regarding the relationship between existing and developing historical thinking pedagogies in young teachers and how they may or may not be enhanced by the resources of technology. Examining the bounded system of their teacher preparation program provided an opportunity for a case study as a thick description of a phenomenon in a real-life context (Merriam, 2009; Yin 2009).\u00a0 The instrumental case study design (Stake, 1995) allowed for an in-depth understanding of the particular context, the process, and the understandings preservice teachers constructed in their work with historical thinking and digitized primary sources.\u00a0 The instrumental case study contributes to the field\u2019s broader understanding of the relationship between historical thinking, digitized websites, and preservice teacher decision-making.<\/p>\n Participants and Data Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n In the fall of 2008, researchers at a large university in the southwest focused attention upon social studies preservice teachers\u2019 learning and application of critical historical thinking within the realm of digitized primary sources.\u00a0 While one of the researchers served as the course instructor, the other two served as data collectors and were not otherwise associated with the course.\u00a0 The researchers\u2019 experiences include teaching at both the elementary and secondary levels, and one researcher\u2019s background is in instructional technology.\u00a0 All of the researchers have conducted qualitative research on preservice teachers\u2019 use of historical thinking.<\/p>\n All of the secondary social studies preservice teachers enrolled in the course (n<\/em> = 22; 16 White women, 3 White men, 2 Latinas, and 1 African American woman) agreed to participate in the descriptive qualitative case study that included field notes for four observations of methods class instruction in critical historical thinking (three) and constructivism (one) used to trace the instruction provided to the undergraduates.<\/p>\n A fifth observation was conducted and field notes were taken during the class session where the secondary social studies preservice students were asked to evaluate the quality of the Presidential Timeline (PTL; http:\/\/www.presidentialtimeline.org\/<\/a>; Figure 1) through their understanding of critical historical thinking via a class discussion. PTL is a collection of particular archives and activities of the 12 existing presidential libraries.\u00a0This class session began with a review of the major concepts of historical thinking and posed the question,\u00a0 How would you determine if a digitized archive website would be valuable to you as a future social studies teacher engaged in gathering resources for use in historical thinking activities?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The students were allowed time to engage in one of the PTL activities with a partner and then shared their findings with the whole class.\u00a0 Though the PTL was the initial site evaluated for its historical thinking elements (and this study), the preservice teachers in the same class session also reviewed Historical Thinking Matters (http:\/\/historicalthinkingmatters.org<\/a>), and were made aware of their future contributions to the Student as Historians website (http:\/\/ows.edb.utexas.edu\/?q=node\/219<\/a>).<\/p>\n A followup interview meant to gain further understandings of the students\u2019 initial responses during the class session was conducted with seven participants purposefully selected because of their varying degrees of performance in the course and because they reflected the demographics of their cohort (see the appendix<\/a> for interview questions).\u00a0 These seven participants (with the pseudonyms Gloria, Donna, Samantha, Emma, Harriet, JoAnn, and John) were all 22 years old and White.<\/p>\n During these interviews, participants were asked to return to the PTL and evaluate the site as a historical thinking learning opportunity.\u00a0 The students were also encouraged to reflect on any related constructivist, historical thinking, or technology-related session within the context of determining the value of digitized primary source websites.\u00a0 For additional triangulation, researchers collected a student-produced performance task assignment that included a hypertext document\/narrative.<\/p>\n Presidential Timeline<\/strong><\/p>\n Access and growing attention to digitized primary sources prompted the researchers to select a typical site social studies educators might want to access (and thus evaluate) regarding the usefulness of a digitized primary source website.\u00a0 According to the site designers, the purpose of the PTL is to provide \u201cprimary and secondary source materials readily and freely available to students, educators, and adult learners throughout the world via a single unified and intuitive interface\u201d (Resta, Flowers, & Tothero, 2007).<\/p>\n The PTL has combined collections from 12 presidential libraries of the National Archives and has organized them into timelines, galleries and exhibits, and has provided educational activities and other resources for teachers.\u00a0 Noteworthy are the eighteen themed exhibits that feature at least one significant historic event that occurred during each presidential term.\u00a0 For example, the significant event exhibited during President Hoover\u2019s term is the stock market crash of 1929, and for President Eisenhower, PTL designers showcase the school integration crisis at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.\u00a0 These exhibits display primary source images and documents as well as audiovisual media from the time period.\u00a0 To tie the primary source elements together, the exhibits also include interpretive narratives, providing a holistic perspective on the event concerned and the action the president took in the face of the event.<\/p>\n All the primary sources are linked to PTL\u2019s archival database where information such as dates, topics, and origin of the artifacts are listed.\u00a0 Primary sources can also be enlarged for closer inspection.\u00a0 For the purpose of the current study, we chose to examine one of the many educational activities available on the PTL.\u00a0 The WebQuest called \u201cThe Atomic Bomb \u2013 August 6, 1945\u201d entails the debate over President Truman\u2019s order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima (Figure 2).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Data Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n After the researchers collectively manually coded transcripts of the interviews, we analyzed them as Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested by noting patterns and themes, arriving at comparisons and contrasts, and determining conceptual explanations of the case studies.\u00a0 For example, abiding by Shulman\u2019s (1986, 1987) notion of the multiple domains of knowledge within a teacher\u2019s repertoire as our theoretical framework, we noted the complexities and demands of the social studies content area and its ensuing pedagogies within the context of a digitized primary source website with historical thinking hard scaffolding.\u00a0 Initial coding found a continuum of enactments that reflected importance of \u201cteacher\u2019s understanding of what is to be learned and how it is to be taught\u201d (Shulman, 2004, p. 227).<\/p>\n In noting the preservice teachers\u2019 comprehension and transformation of subject knowledge and pedagogy, we attended to how these preservice teachers made sense of their own content, the curriculum materials provided on the PTL, and the pedagogical notions of historical thinking.\u00a0 Data was continuously revisited so that patterns and themes could be thoroughly interrogated.\u00a0 The patterns, themes and comparisons of interview, observation, and artifact data led us to the findings included in this paper.<\/p>\n Results<\/strong><\/p>\n In this study, we sought to examine how preservice social studies teachers understood digitized primary sources in historical thinking formats as a teaching and learning tool and how they understood the role of such a tool in fostering historical thinking. Two themes emerged from our initial data analysis of interviews, observations, and artifacts.\u00a0 First, the preservice teachers were able to identify and rationalize an importance of digitized primary source websites in teaching the social studies.\u00a0 A discourse of \u201cefficiency\u201d unfolded as website content the informants viewed.\u00a0 Second, the pedagogical knowledge preservice teachers held regarding historical thinking (e.g., sourcing, significance, agency, etc.) was made apparent through their evaluation of the website\u2019s historical thinking task.\u00a0 Ultimately, the informants utilized their understanding of historical thinking as the primary way of determining how a historical thinking website would become a useful tool for their instructional decisions.<\/p>\n More Is Better\u2014The Excitement Over Primary Sources <\/strong><\/p>\n As the social studies preservice teachers reviewed the PTL during a class session and then later shared other understandings about the value and use of digitized primary sources websites during interviews, their immediate reactions attended to the amount of information that was now readily available to them.\u00a0 Related to the work of VanFossen (1999-2000), the preservice teachers saw these sites as opportunities to gather primary sources for their teaching in the social studies.<\/p>\n The informants noted at least four elements of the PTL that, in effect, created a pragmatic meter in determining the appeal of a digitized primary resource website (see figure 1).\u00a0 In other words, they valued a digitized primary resource website in teaching historical thinking in terms of its usefulness\u2014the vast availability, uniqueness, utility, and organization of the curriculum made available to a teacher.<\/p>\n Figure 3.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/em>Pragmatic Meter preservice teachers initially used to evaluate a digitized primary source website.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n First, the most common responses regarding digitized primary source websites (the PTL, in particular) revolved around the idea of vast availability.\u00a0 The social studies preservice teachers participating in this study clearly felt that the magnitude of primary sources accessible to teachers was the most important feature of a digitized primary source website. Gloria\u2019s description of the import of digitized primary sources was typical:<\/p>\n You can use almost anything as long as you cite it.\u00a0You can find\u2026on the LBJ library there\u2019s all these recordings of LBJ, his telephone conversations\u2026.You can actually look through that stuff, present it to [students] and see how\u2026.There\u2019s just so much out there, I don\u2019t know about the negatives.\u00a0 Maybe the negative is just that there\u2019s so much out there you\u2019ll have to sort out for the best thing to use\u2014that\u2019s probably the only negative.\u00a0 I\u2019m really all for it. (Gloria, Interview, December 12, 2008)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gloria\u2019s attention to specific primary resources and her delight at their availability was similarly expressed by all of the participants.\u00a0 The secondary social studies preservice teachers, for example, often commented upon the gallery portion of the PTL.\u00a0 Their remarks included a string of common responses like, \u201cWow\u2014that\u2019s lots of stuff we can use,\u201d and \u201cI can\u2019t believe how much you can get here.\u201d\u00a0 The PTL was seen as an impressive warehouse of primary sources that was now at their fingertips.<\/p>\n Second, students frequently commented on the uniqueness of the primary sources (multiple modalities) as they often made note of the various kinds of primary sources, including recordings, photos, and government documents.\u00a0 For example, Donna described her excitement:<\/p>\n There\u2019s so much music and poetry, all these kinds of resources you might not have been able to access…15 years ago.\u00a0 You would have to go to the library to get your box of slides.\u00a0 All the teachers take turns using the slides.\u00a0 But now you can go, you can get five paintings that you want to show by the time period, put them on a PowerPoint, put them on a projector and just talk about them without the limitation of what other teachers are using or their school habit.\u00a0 It\u2019s just there! (Interview, March 10, 2009)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The inventory of varying types of digitized resources (e.g., journal entries, newspaper articles, and press releases) was a typical listing of primary resources that were now digitized and available.\u00a0 Donna and the other informants seemed most attracted to the availability and variety of primary resources (e.g., recordings, music, and poetry).\u00a0 In this sense, they noted the kinds of resources and the advancements that technology has brought to the classroom teacher.<\/p>\n Third, comments regarding the utility of the PTL also highlighted what the preservice teachers valued, including a tab on the PTL that indicated the length of a primary source (e.g., duration of a video, number of pages of a document).\u00a0 This particular information appeared to be vital to the young preservice teachers.\u00a0 Samantha explained during an interview,<\/p>\n Reading documents, it\u2019s\u2026most of the language is old, it\u2019s hard to understand.\u00a0 It\u2019s a lot\u2026you know, it\u2019s long\u2026.I think it\u2019s useful, if you can find something that\u2019s short and succinct and easy to read, then\u2026 it\u2019s more useful. (Interview, February 23, 2009)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In fact, one of the primary source documents used during the PTL class session was a nine-page letter by former Secretary of War Henry Stimson.\u00a0 The letter drew many comments and complaints from the class, with most students indicating it was too long and, therefore, could not realistically be used for a classroom activity.\u00a0 For the preservice teachers, knowing the length of the primary source was deemed as helpful, with long documents being discounted, regardless of their content or significance.<\/p>\n One more collection of practical comments was noted in our analysis.\u00a0 Participants thought digitized primary source sites organized by social studies curriculum topics were exceptionally advantageous.\u00a0 For example, Emma explained,<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know, I think it\u2019s a good website because I know in the past I\u2019ve searched the Internet to find primary documents for lessons I was teaching.\u00a0 It\u2019s nice to\u2026 for somebody to have it concise\u2026 I mean, I have found eight\u2026 for one last night I found eight different primary documents and came up with questions for all of them.\u00a0 Because I wanted them to analyze primary documents, I didn\u2019t know something that was succinct [was labeled by historical topic and president] that I could get it all for them and that took so much time\u2026This is so much more convenient. (Class Discussion, October 14, 2008)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The organization of the PTL by typical social studies instructional topics (e.g., Hoover and the stock market collapse, Eisenhower and school integration, Truman and the atomic bomb) that could fit into social studies curriculum topics became the overriding decision point.\u00a0 Emma was not alone in seeking out digitized primary source websites that were easier to use and comprehensive in nature. Harriet provided one additional example of how the preservice teachers measured the feasibility of a website with digitized primary resources:<\/p>\n How they help is, with the political cartoons, the maps and even some of the shorter documents, some of the shorter telegrams, it\u2019s right there for you.\u00a0 So you can kind of just go in and go, \u201cOh!\u00a0 Look at this political cartoon!\u201d and then all you have to do is write your own questions.\u00a0 You don\u2019t have to spend hours hunting for the right political cartoon for the right movement and spend hours trying to interpret it. (Class Discussion, October 14, 2008)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The collection of primary sources addressing a singular topic or concept that is common to social studies instruction was appreciated.\u00a0 Even when the digitized primary source website failed to provide a robust and cohesive collection of primary sources and adequate\/appropriate document-based questions (DBQs; as was the case of the Truman exhibit purposefully used in this study), the preservice teachers still weighed the time involved in selecting primary sources from raw digitized primary source websites (e.g., The National Archives, which broadly organizes digitized primary sources by broader topic areas) to that of a specifically focused but poorly designed digitized primary source website (e.g., the Truman site, which offered only three primary sources and contained only DBQs for one primary source).\u00a0 In fact (and to our dismay), the preservice teachers never actually mentioned the flaws in the site\u2019s use of primary sources and DBQs.<\/p>\n In sum, for the preservice social studies teachers, more was better.\u00a0 The participants determined the guiding criteria for a digitized primary source website that was deemed useful were brief primary sources, a focused organization, and readiness for consumption.<\/p>\n There\u2019s so much stuff\u2026.There\u2019s so much you can go in, it\u2019s sort of easy to get lost in it, but yeah, you can go and you can pick and choose what you want to do\u2026 and you know, from year to year you might have students with different interests or things might go in different directions, so I love there\u2019s that\u2026 breadth of things out there\u2026 and that it is there and it\u2019s easy to search.\u00a0 It\u2019s easy to find stuff that\u2019s really great, I think. (Harriet, Interview, December 16, 2008)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a singular statement, Harriet captured the advantage and disadvantage of such digitized primary source websites in nonsensical terms.\u00a0 Scarcely touching upon how having access to more altered their teaching, or how the quality of more needed to be interrogated, the study participants overwhelming revealed an immediate and pragmatic lens through which digitized primary source websites might be judged as social studies and historical thinking resources.<\/p>\n At Second Glance, Historical Thinking Matters<\/strong><\/p>\n The preservice teachers participating in this study had attended several methods class sessions on historical thinking with attention on the work of Seixas (1993) and VanSledright (2002).\u00a0 They had also read and discussed Wineburg (2001) and his caution regarding presentism (the act of viewing the past through the lens of the present) and the need to contextualize historical events.\u00a0 Finally, designing lesson plans (that included primary sources and DBQs) for historical thinking and a separate assignment (Student as Historian), which involved the collection of digitized primary sources, writing DBQs, and a hypertext narrative, all helped the researchers feel relatively confident in the preservice teachers\u2019 ability to examine the value of PTL in thorough ways.\u00a0 Regardless, their initial reactions were about the vastness, uniqueness, utility, and organization of the PTL.\u00a0 However, at least three more sophisticated discussions eventually emerged in the participants\u2019 evaluation of the PTL site.<\/p>\n First, the informants noted their understandings of socioconstructivism as a related element of historical thinking and the PTL.\u00a0 For example, several of the preservice teachers were able to discern the importance of prior knowledge as it relates to epistemology (see Seixas, 1993) and historical positionality (see VanSledright, 2002) in developing DBQs.\u00a0 In her review of the PTL DBQs, Harriet concluded, \u201cI\u2019d say, I feel like maybe it [DBQ] doesn\u2019t do enough to access prior knowledge\u201d (Class Discussion, October 14, 2008).<\/p>\n In the followup interview JoAnn noted, \u201cI know the opening narrative sets the stage, but when you get to the activity you jump right in and never really ask the kids, \u2018What do you know about Hiroshima?\u2019\u201d (Interview, December 16, 2008).\u00a0 In this sense, the study participants recognized the importance of prior knowledge in developing DBQs for a historical thinking activity.<\/p>\n Notions of prior knowledge are linked to understandings of contexts for historical thinking practice.\u00a0 VanSledright (2010) argued that historical thinking \u201crequires locating the author within her historical context.\u00a0 Recognizing that an author with an historically contextualized position constructed an account for a purpose\u201d (p. 14).\u00a0 Both Harriet and JoAnn understood that tapping into what children already know about a primary source or the context of the primary source is essential to historical thinking.<\/p>\n Gloria also examined the DBQs on the PTL site and evaluated their use in guiding students through the primary source documents.\u00a0 She explained, \u201cThere are a few questions that I think you should start a little earlier, or like lower level or something\u2026something to build on, prior knowledge. Does that make sense?\u201d (Gloria, Interview, December 12, 2008).\u00a0 Here, Gloria was referring not only to a type of scaffolding that should occur through Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy (see Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), but also to a type of scaffolding that would occur through historical thinking.\u00a0 For example, Gloria might have been searching for a sourcing question (e.g., In what context was this primary source created?) or an epistemological question (e.g., What events can you describe from this primary source?).<\/p>\n Samantha also noted, \u201cI don\u2019t think these questions get at basic understanding of the primary source.\u00a0 Like what it says, who said it, and why they said it\u201d (Class Discussion, October 14, 2008).\u00a0 In this sense, the informants were well aware that DBQs are vital in tapping into learners\u2019 prior understandings and positionality and need to be presented in particular and strategic ways to guide students toward more complex understandings of history.<\/p>\n Second, some attention was paid to particular (but not all) elements of historical thinking. John for example, defined historical thinking within the study as \u201cbeing able to think back.\u00a0 You know, to that time period, put yourself in that context, that situation, being able to think about things in different ways\u201d (Interview, December 16, 2008).\u00a0 His attention to context did not acknowledge Wineburg\u2019s (2001) warning of presentism, (the act of viewing the past through the lens of the present).\u00a0 Instead, John\u2019s understandings aimed at agency, empathy, and possibly, moral judgment as discussed within Seixas\u2019 (1993) work.\u00a0 JoAnn made related claims in explaining:<\/p>\n [It\u2019s] like using those things [primary sources] to teach students about how to take themselves out of the context they\u2019re in and put themselves into the context of the primary source\u2026thinking about and seeing how they can connect with how that person may have felt. (Class Discussion, October 14, 2008)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Overwhelmingly, preservice teachers were attracted to particular Seixas notions while ignoring others.\u00a0 Although significance was rarely noted, it was apparent that agency, empathy, and moral judgment were frequently mentioned by the participants as important elements included in their historical thinking.<\/p>\n Determining whether or not they could distinguish between empathy, agency, and moral judgment is difficult.\u00a0 For example, Donna explained her critique of the PTL by stating,<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s a good resource, it\u2019s easily accessible, it has primary sources readily available that are like, you know, primary sources, but I don\u2019t think that it elicits enough emotions for something like the atomic bomb, which, you know, is something that\u2019s still important to us today.\u00a0 You know that the students need to learn about\u2026 they need to create their own ideas. (Interview, March 10, 2009)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In this case, Donna showed an understanding of how the primary sources could or could not be used to prompt a student\u2019s understanding of notions related to empathy, or agency, or moral judgment through her emphasis on \u201cemotions.\u201d\u00a0 Then again, valuable differences exist between empathy, agency, and moral judgment that Donna did not distinguish among during the interview.\u00a0 John also blurred empathy, agency, and moral judgment when he explained, \u201cIt\u2019s great that we can show our students how horrible the dropping of the Atomic Bomb was or what a hard time people had in making this decision\u201d (Interview, December 16, 2008).\u00a0 One could argue that John knows the difference in this example between empathy (\u201chorrible\u201d) and agency (\u201chard time\u201d), but as a preservice teacher he did not develop these notions in explicit ways.<\/p>\n Context<\/em> also seemed to be a commonly used historical thinking term or concept by the informants in their review of the PTL.\u00a0 Samantha, for example, in a followup interview commented that the best way to foster historical thinking is through \u201cproviding the material for [students] to understand the context of whatever you\u2019re teaching\u201d (Interview, February 23, 2009).\u00a0 In fact, in their followup interview all seven students attended to context.\u00a0 However, during the class discussion on PTL, John stated that \u201chistorical thinking is putting yourself in the context of the event or things that took place\u201d to which Samantha responded, \u201cAnd making sure your students know how to put themselves in the context of what you\u2019re teaching\u201d (October 14, 2008).\u00a0 In this analysis, it appears that the preservice social studies teachers conflated context with empathy, agency, and moral judgment.<\/p>\n Third, while the students recognized the several vital elements of historical thinking, only Harriet recognized that DBQs were only written for the first of the three primary sources.\u00a0 Furthermore, though the informants noted the importance of agency, empathy, and moral judgment, the DBQs provided for the primary source did not address these elements of historical thinking.\u00a0 A reminder of the quantity and quality of the DBQs during the followup interview yielded contrasting responses.\u00a0 Donna, for example, explained, \u201cI don\u2019t really ever follow the DBQs.\u00a0 So I guess it was not important to me that they were not great or lacking or whatever\u201d (Interview, March 10, 2009).<\/p>\n Gloria noted, \u201cOh I guess that is an error on their part. I just took off after the first documents without even thinking about the DBQs after that\u201d (Interview, December 12, 2008).\u00a0 Finally, John commented after some prompting, \u201cI didn\u2019t like the first set of questions so I was thinking on my own\u2014sort of making up other questions I would ask as a teacher\u201d (Interview, December 16, 2008).<\/p>\n The presence of DBQs (good or bad) was, therefore, irrelevant to the social studies preservice teachers participating in the study.\u00a0 Similar to Wineburg\u2019s (2001) presentation of primary sources to different individuals (historians, students, and teachers), variations in the reading of historical documents can be expected.\u00a0 A variation in an individual\u2019s allegiance or deviation from the DBQs can also be expected.\u00a0 On one hand, editing or ignoring the DBQs is problematic since these organized sites are presumably purposefully designed in the spirit of context narrative, primary source choices (perspectives), and meaningful DBQ formation.\u00a0 The PTL authors (again, presumably) have taken great care in selecting and presenting particular stances through the selection of primary sources and DBQs.<\/p>\n On the other hand, editing or ignoring DBQs might reveal a variety of acts relevant to historical thinking website designs.\u00a0 For example, Donna may be the kind of reader (both as teacher and learner) who resists guides and prompts.\u00a0 Gloria may be the kind of reader of historical documents who appreciates the initial nudging of DBQs, but then positions herself independent of the think-aloud author(s).\u00a0 In contrast, John may be the type of reader who critically disagrees with the design and is capable of creating different directions to take the think-aloud.\u00a0 Regardless, the preservice teachers demonstrated an array of unexpected responses to the DBQs.\u00a0 Rather than demonstrating their knowledge of what a good think-aloud design should include, the participants created their own decision premise for viewing the DBQs.<\/p>\n The use of a pragmatic meter may be typical of social studies preservice teachers\u2019 preliminary encounters with digitized primary source websites.\u00a0 Impressed by an inordinate amount of historical thinking resources, the various types of historical thinking resources, the usability of historical thinking resources, and topically organized historical thinking resources, the preservice teachers were commonsensical in their review of the PTL.\u00a0 Social studies preservice teachers are new at the instructional approach of historical thinking and, consequently, need additional time and practice in developing a more thorough understanding of the quality (historical thinking elements, primary source choices, and DBQs) of a site like PTL.\u00a0 Undeniably, the future teachers\u2019 understandings of historical thinking attended to ways of knowing history that appealed to them most.\u00a0 The social studies preservice teachers\u2019 decision-making and thinking provided a rationale for evaluating a typical site that serves the teaching and learning of historical thinking.\u00a0 The basis of that rationale remains important for teacher educators to explore.<\/p>\n Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n Examining preservice teachers\u2019 understandings of digitized primary source web-based archives and their value in teaching historical thinking focuses on the \u201cgrounds for choices and action\u201d (Shulman, 2004, p. 234) that typify teachers\u2019 thinking about their future instructional practice.\u00a0 The way teachers determine the value, usefulness, and trustworthiness of websites with digitized primary sources is entwined with how they understand historical thinking.\u00a0 Thus, in this case study of seven preservice secondary social studies teachers, the grounds for choices and action were an interaction between PCK and those sources of knowledge from which teachers draw upon in their understandings of teaching and learning.<\/p>\n \u00a0Shulman\u2019s (2004) enumeration of the four sources of teacher knowledge includes scholarship in content disciplines, educational materials and structures, formal educational scholarship, and the wisdom of practice.\u00a0 First, teachers\u2019 knowledge sources can include an understanding of the scholarship in the content areas; for example, those substantive and syntactic structures of history (Schwab, 1964) or the way in which the discipline determines how knowledge is organized and how it is legitimized.<\/p>\n Teachers\u2019 knowledge sources of educational materials and structures may also include familiarity with the landscape of primary sources now readily available through digitized archives.\u00a0 Teachers\u2019 knowledge sources may include formal educational scholarship that explicitly explains instructional approaches to historical thinking.\u00a0 Finally, the teachers\u2019 cumulative source of knowledge is \u201creflective rationalization\u201d or wisdom of practice (Shulman, 2004, p. 236).<\/p>\n The enactment of historical thinking and the ways in which teachers evaluate digitized primary source websites then, does not draw from linear or seamless sources of knowledge, but instead reflects the complexity of teacher decision making.<\/p>\n One must consider how knowledge of the content area discipline, Shulman\u2019s first enumerated source, plays into teachers\u2019 decision making regarding what might be useful from digitized websites.\u00a0 This decision point is where knowing what to teach and why to teach particular concepts, ideas, and moments in history can be linked to the readily available and vast resources of digitized archives.\u00a0 Teachers inevitably view these archives as a cache of content knowledge that may range from useful to useless.<\/p>\n For instance, a teacher with an understanding of the discipline (e.g., American history; the dropping of the atomic bomb) and its relationship to other disciplines (e.g., American history and<\/em> government; d\u00e9tente policies) will have a more deliberate and informed process of selecting content knowledge from archives.\u00a0 Simultaneously, a teacher who has not yet acquired robust disciplinary and cross-disciplinary understandings will not be able to draw from archives in the same highly developed way. Understandings of how digitized primary sources websites are valued in the use of historical thinking are dependent then, upon a teacher\u2019s understanding of the scholarship of content discipline.<\/p>\n Any teacher\u2019s initial response to the availability of digitized primary sources, or the sheer amount of instructional materials, may reasonably be euphoric.\u00a0 The pedagogical practice of historical thinking is fundamentally tied to those rich primary sources that can provide historical evidence, tensions, contradictions, and questions.\u00a0 Historical photos, journal entries, letters, maps, and government documents appear at the click of a button and present teachers with an inordinate number of immediate choices.\u00a0 The more-is-better and pragmatic meter perspectives, then, are presumably a suitable starting point at which teachers begin to utilize educational materials.<\/p>\n Teachers may then view preorganized primary sources and accompanying DBQs without much interrogation.\u00a0 This response remains almost idiosyncratic without the benefit of a thorough or collaborative inspection of the value of these digitized primary sources.\u00a0 However, if a teacher seeks out specific primary sources that provide counterarguments, alternative perspectives, or contradictions essential to fully understanding the topic at hand, this response would hardly be idiosyncratic.\u00a0 Beyond the more-is-better and pragmatic meter perspectives, \u00a0instead, is the issue of how educational materials\u2014in this case digitized websites\u2014must be carefully interrogated if they are to be helpful in completing a lesson or concept.\u00a0 Understandings of how digitized primary source websites are valued in the use of historical thinking, then, are dependent upon a teacher\u2019s understanding of the educational materials and structures.<\/p>\n Beyond the sources of content and educational materials is the enumerated source of formal educational scholarship.\u00a0 In the case of the pedagogical practice of historical thinking, primary sources ought to reveal context, empathy, and moral judgment.\u00a0 As they cull through digitized primary source archives, teachers might also be seeking firsthand accounts that demonstrate significance or agency.\u00a0 In this sense, teachers are consciously aware of what good historical thinking looks like and what the essential components are in constructing a lesson that utilizes digitized primary sources.\u00a0 However, digitized archives (raw or organized) cannot make these decisions for teachers.<\/p>\n The greater the working knowledge of historical thinking a teacher has, the greater the contribution of any collection of digitized archives.\u00a0 Even when teachers have well-grounded understandings of historical thinking, they may still gravitate toward particular elements of historical thinking (e.g., in this case study, empathy).\u00a0 Regardless, understandings of how digitized primary source websites are valued in the use of historical thinking are dependent upon a teacher\u2019s understandings of the related formal educational scholarship.<\/p>\n Finally, there is uniqueness to the wisdom of practice that might be noted in examining teachers\u2019 understandings of the value of digitized websites and historical thinking.\u00a0 Distinctly, the substance and design of website archives do not resemble or adhere to Schwab-like structures of knowledge in the content areas.\u00a0 Likewise, these sites are not held to official curricula nor to any predetermined standards of curricula.\u00a0 Moreover, they do not necessarily follow the Wineburg, Seixas, and VanSledright educational scholarship that has served to well-define the field of historical thinking.\u00a0 Digitized website archives present preservice teachers with a complex labyrinth of educational choices that may or may not align with Shulman\u2019s originally enumerated knowledge sources that culminate in a wisdom of practice.<\/p>\n Implications<\/p>\n The movement toward examining teacher cognition and the integration of technology into the teaching of social studies has created fertile conversations for both preservice and in-service teacher educators.\u00a0 Attention to domains of knowledge and the cognitive journey toward the wisdom of practice has prompted the field to consider much more complex renditions of teachers and teacher decision-making.\u00a0 Tracing how enumerated sources emerge or fail to emerge in social studies teachers’ decision-making allows the field to attend to how content knowledge can influence the use of digitized resources, as well as what teachers know about curriculum and the pedagogies at hand (in this case, historical thinking) as they pertain to digitized resources.\u00a0 In a methods course or staff development, promoting a more thorough understanding of why, how, and for what purpose teachers engage in particular practices and reflections rightly becomes instrumental.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the nascent work via Shulman’s framework provides the field a complex rendition of a teacher\u2019s need to have content-specific staff development (Hughes, 2005), makes visible stances and ideologies as they influence PCK, adds a separate domain of knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), or points to a need to interrogate those sources of knowledge from which teachers pull in their processing.\u00a0 By highlighting and evaluating what teachers know and how they know, teacher educators have an opportunity to consider how better to understand and reflect upon their existing and ever-growing wisdom.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n More than a decade ago, Berson (1996) conducted a metanalysis on the effectiveness of technology in social studies revealing varying degrees of impacts for different kinds of technology. He concluded that the overall adoption of technology remained superficial, as teachers\u2019 existing pedagogical stance remained unchanged.\u00a0 Teachers\u2019 adoption of technology in social studies has remained low despite efforts of both the government and professional associations such as the International Society for Technology in Education (Berson et al., 2001).\u00a0 Yet, efforts for a more technology-infused social studies education, especially in history education as digitized primary sources\/historical archives, remain intact (Swan & Hofer, 2008).<\/p>\n On one hand, without better developed understandings of historical thinking pedagogies, teachers may not be aware of the shortcomings of digitized websites and how they may or may not help change their teaching.\u00a0 On the other hand, attention to how preservice teachers may or may not make sense of readily accessible digitized primary sources is related to how they continue to make connections between their existing sources of knowledge and their ever-changing sources of knowledge that provide them with unparalleled opportunities and challenges.\u00a0 Meaningful engagement with digitized primary source websites as tools for historical thinking remains premised upon the formulation of a new wisdom of practice.<\/p>\n References<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001).\u00a0 A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom\u2019s taxonomy of educational objectives <\/em>(abridged ed.).\u00a0 New York, NY:\u00a0 Longman Publishing Group.<\/p>\n Barton, K. (2001).\u00a0 A picture\u2019s worth.\u00a0 Social Education, 65<\/em>(5), 278-283.<\/p>\n Berson, M. J., Mason, C. L., Heinecke, W. F., & Coutts, C. B. (2001).\u00a0 An examination of beliefs and practices of social studies methods faculty.\u00a0 International Social Studies Forum, 1<\/em>(2), 89-105.<\/p>\n Berson, M. J. (1996).\u00a0 Effectiveness of computer technology in the social studies: A review of the literature.\u00a0 Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28<\/em>(4), 487-499.<\/p>\n Bolick, C. M. (2006).\u00a0 Digital archives: Democratizing the doing of history. International Journal of Social Education, 21<\/em>(1), 122-134.<\/p>\n Bolick, C. M., & McGlinn, M. M. (2004).\u00a0 Harriet Jacobs:\u00a0 Using online slave narratives in the classroom.\u00a0 Social Education, 68<\/em>(3), 198-202.<\/p>\n Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001).\u00a0 High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms:\u00a0 Explaining an apparent paradox.\u00a0 American Educational Research Journal, 38<\/em>(4),813-834.<\/p>\n DeWitt, S. W. (2004).\u00a0 Computer use in high school social studies classrooms: A comparative case study within social class context. <\/em>\u00a0Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.<\/p>\n Doppen, F. H., & Tesar, J. E. (2008).\u00a0 Social studies preservice teachers\u2019 first-order documents.\u00a0 Social Studies Research and Practice 3<\/em>(2), 1-10.<\/p>\n Endacott, J. (2010).\u00a0 Reconsidering affective engagement in historical empathy.\u00a0 Theory and Research in Social Education, 38<\/em>(1), 6-49.<\/p>\n Epstein, T. (2009).\u00a0 Interpreting national history:\u00a0 Race, identity, and pedagogy in classrooms and communities.<\/em>\u00a0 New York, NY:\u00a0 Routledge.<\/p>\n Ertmer, P. (2005).\u00a0 Teacher pedagogical beliefs:\u00a0 The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?\u00a0 Educational Technology Research & Development, 53<\/em>(4), 25-39.<\/p>\n Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006-2007).\u00a0 Exemplary technology-using teachers:\u00a0 Perceptions of factors influencing success.\u00a0 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23<\/em>(2), 55-61.<\/p>\n Fragnoli, K. (2005).\u00a0 Historical inquiry in a methods classroom:\u00a0 Examining our beliefs and shedding our old ways.\u00a0 The Social Studies, 96<\/em>(6), 247-251.<\/p>\n Franklin, C. A., & Molebash, P. E.\u00a0 (2007).\u00a0 Technology in the elementary social studies classroom:\u00a0 Teacher preparation does matter.\u00a0 Theory & Research in Social Education, 35<\/em>(2), 153-173.<\/p>\n Friedman, A. (2006). World history teachers\u2019 use of digital primary sources: The effect of training. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34<\/em>(1), 124-141.<\/p>\n Friedman, A., (2008). Social studies teachers\u2019 use of the Internet to foster democratic citizenship. In P. J. VanFossen & M. J. Berson (Eds.), The Electronic Republic: The impact of technology on education for citizenship<\/em> (pp. 173-195). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.<\/p>\n Hicks, D., Doolittle, P., & Lee, J. (2004).\u00a0 Social studies teachers\u2019 use of classroom based and web-based historical primary sources.\u00a0 Theory and Research in Social Education, 32<\/em>(2), 213-247.<\/p>\n Hicks, D., Tlou, J., Lee, J., & Doolittle, P.\u00a0 (2002).\u00a0 Global connections:\u00a0 Using the Internet to support citizenship education.\u00a0 The International Journal of Social Education, 17<\/em>(1), 93-102.<\/p>\n Hughes, J. (2005).\u00a0 The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy.\u00a0 Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13<\/em>(2), 277-302.<\/p>\n Lee, J. K. (2002).\u00a0 Digital history in the history\/social studies classroom.\u00a0 History Teacher, 35, <\/em>503-518.<\/p>\n Lee, J. K. (2006). Pre-service social studies teachers using digital civic resources.\u00a0 International Journal of Social Education, 21<\/em>(1), 95-110.<\/p>\n Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2008).\u00a0 Researching history education:\u00a0 Theory, method, and context.<\/em>\u00a0 New York, NY:\u00a0 Routledge.<\/p>\n Lowenthal, D. (2000).\u00a0 Dilemmas and delights of learning history.\u00a0 In P. Sterns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history:\u00a0 National and international perspectives<\/em>, (pp. 63-82). New York, NY: New York University Press.<\/p>\n Mason, C., & Hicks, D. (2002).\u00a0 Digital history as rich information: Access and analysis.\u00a0 In A. Loveless & B. Dore (Eds.), ICT in the primary school <\/em>\u00a0(pp. 66-84).\u00a0 Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.<\/p>\n McGlinn, M. (2007).\u00a0 Using the \u201cDocumenting the American South\u201d digital library in the social studies:\u00a0 A case study of the experiences of teachers in the field.\u00a0 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7<\/em>(1), 529-553. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol7\/iss1\/socialstudies\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Merriam, S. B. (2009).\u00a0 Qualitative research:\u00a0 A guide to design and implementation<\/em>.\u00a0 San Francisco, CA:\u00a0 Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).\u00a0 Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook<\/em> (2nd ed.).\u00a0 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/p>\n Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:\u00a0 A framework for teacher knowledge.\u00a0 Teachers College Record, 108<\/em>(6), 1017-1054.<\/p>\n Resta, P., Flowers, B. S., & Tothero, K. (2007).\u00a0 The presidential timeline of the 20th century.\u00a0 Social Education, 71<\/em>(3), 115-119.<\/p>\n Rosenzweig,\u00a0 R. (2001).\u00a0 The road to Xanadu: Public and private pathways on the history web. Journal of American History, 88<\/em>(2), 548-579.<\/p>\n Salinas, C., & Sullivan, C. (2007).\u00a0 Latina\/o teachers and historical positionality:\u00a0 Challenging the construction of the official school knowledge.\u00a0 Journal of<\/em> Curriculum and Pedagogy, 4<\/em>(1), 178-199.<\/em><\/p>\n Sandwell, R.\u00a0 (2004).\u00a0 \u201cWho killed William Robinson?\u201d\u00a0 Exploring a nineteenth century murder online.\u00a0 Social Education, 68<\/em>(3), 210-213.<\/p>\n Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2007). Using technology-enhanced learning environments to support problem-based historical inquiry in secondary school classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35<\/em>(2), 196-230.<\/p>\n Schrum, K.\u00a0 (2001).\u00a0 Making history on the web matter in your classroom.\u00a0 The History Teacher, 34<\/em>(3), 327-338.<\/p>\n Schwab, J. J. (1964).\u00a0 The structures of the disciplines:\u00a0 Meanings and significances.\u00a0 In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum<\/em> (pp. 1-30). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.<\/p>\n Seixas, P. (1993).\u00a0 Historical understanding among adolescents in multicultural settings.\u00a0 Curriculum Inquiry, 23<\/em>, 281-304.<\/p>\n Seixas, P. (1998).\u00a0 Preservice teachers assess students\u2019 prior historical understanding.\u00a0 Theory and Research in Social Education, 26<\/em>(3), 310-341.<\/p>\n Shulman, L. S. (1986).\u00a0 Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching.\u00a0 Educational Researcher, 15<\/em>(2), 4-14.<\/p>\n Shulman, L. S. (1987).\u00a0 Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.\u00a0 Harvard Educational Review, 57<\/em>(1), 1-22.<\/p>\n Shulman, L. S. (2004).\u00a0 The wisdom of practice:\u00a0 Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach<\/em>.\u00a0 San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n Stake, R.\u00a0 (1995). The art of case study research<\/em>.\u00a0 Thousand Oaks, CA:\u00a0 Sage.<\/p>\n Stearns, P., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (2000). \u00a0Knowing teaching & learning history:\u00a0 National and international perspectives<\/em>.\u00a0 New York, NY:\u00a0 New York University Press.<\/p>\n Swan, K., & Hicks, D. (2007).\u00a0 Through the democratic lens:\u00a0 The role of purpose in leveraging technology to support historical inquiry in the social studies classroom.\u00a0 The International Journal of Social Studies Education, \u00a021<\/em>(2), 142-168.<\/p>\n Swan, K., & Hofer, M., (2008). Technology and social studies.\u00a0 In L. S. Levstick & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education<\/em> (pp. 307-326).\u00a0 New York, NY:\u00a0 Routledge.<\/p>\n Tally, B., & Goldenberg, L. B. (2005). Fostering historical thinking with digitized primary sources. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38<\/em>(1), 1-21.<\/p>\n VanFossen, P. (1999-2000).\u00a0 An analysis of the use of the Internet and World Wide Web by secondary social studies teachers in Indiana.\u00a0 The International Journal of Social Education, 14<\/em>(2), 87-109.<\/p>\n VanFossen, P. (2001).\u00a0 Degree of Internet\/WWW use-and barriers to use-among secondary social studies teachers.\u00a0 International Journal of Instructional Media, 28<\/em>(1), 57-74.<\/p>\n Van Sledright, B. (2002).\u00a0 In search of America\u2019s Past<\/em>.\u00a0 New York, NY:\u00a0 Teachers College Press.<\/p>\n VanSledright, B. (2004). What does it mean to think historically… and how do you teach it?\u00a0 Social Education, 68<\/em>(3), 230-233.<\/p>\n Wills, J. S. (1996).\u00a0 Who needs multicultural education?\u00a0 White students, U.S. history, and the construction of a usable past.\u00a0 Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 27<\/em>, 365-389.<\/p>\n Wineburg, S. (2001).\u00a0 Historical thinking and other unnatural acts:\u00a0 Charting the future of teaching the past<\/em>.\u00a0 Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.<\/p>\n Yeager, E. A., & Wilson, E. K. (1997). Teaching historical thinking in the social studies methods course:\u00a0 A case study.\u00a0 The Social Studies, 88<\/em>(3), 121-126.<\/p>\n Yin, R. K. (2009).\u00a0 Case study research:\u00a0 Design and methods, applied social research methods series <\/em>(4th ed.).\u00a0 Thousand Oaks, CA:\u00a0 Sage.<\/p>\n Author Information<\/p>\n Cinthia Salinas M. Elizabeth Bellows H. Leonard Liaw<\/p>\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v11i2SS1Fig1.jpg\")
Figure 1.<\/strong> Screenshot of the Presidential Timeline website.<\/p>\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v11i2SS1Fig2.jpg\")
Figure 2.<\/strong> Screenshot from The Atomic Bomb webquest on the Presidential Timeline website<\/p>\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v11i2SS1Fig3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nUniversity<\/em> of Texas<\/em>
\nEmail: cssalinas@mail.utexas.edu<\/a><\/p>\n
\nUniversity<\/em> of Texas<\/em><\/p>\n
\n