Researchers have argued that educating students through the use of historical thinking fosters important skills, including critical thinking (Brophy, 1990; Chapman, 2011; Pattiz, 2004; Waring & Robinson, 2010). \u00a0It is vital for students to have opportunities to evaluate and discriminatingly choose sources (Lee, 2005) and learn how to properly construct historical narratives (Brown & Dotson, 2007; Voelker, 2008; Waring, 2012), as well as how to assess narratives they encounter (Alridge, 2006; Levstik & Barton, 2011; Paxton, 1999).<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, traditional methods for teaching history in K-12 classrooms ignore essential elements of the historical thinking process by teaching history in a monocausal format, void of interpretation (Levstik, 1997). \u00a0Historical issues are often presented as a dichotomous battle between the winners and the losers or one side that is \u201cright\u201d and the other that is \u201cwrong\u201d rather than the study of situated, competing narratives also mediated by the personal narratives of those who teach them (Coughlin, 2003).<\/p>\n
Ways to combat this dualistic and static way of thinking must be encouraged in social studies classrooms (Chapman, 2003). \u00a0In this paper, we describe the ways that innovative pedagogies and technologies can be integrated to promote student engagement and historical thinking.<\/p>\n
Emerging Technologies, Content Pedagogies, and Historical Thinking<\/strong><\/p>\n Researchers have argued that a more effective and engaging method of teaching history allows children to consider multiple perspectives and conduct historical inquiry (VanSledright, 2002; Wyman, 2005). \u00a0Wineburg (2001) posited that historical thinking is not something to which people attain naturally or easily:<\/p>\n Its achievement\u2026actually goes against the grain of how we ordinarily think, one of the reasons why it is much easier to learn names, dates, and stories than it is to change the basic mental structures we use to grasp the meaning of the past. (p. 7)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In addition, individuals need to \u201cgo beyond our own image, to go beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeting moment in human history into which we have been born\u201d (Wineburg, 2001, p. 24). \u00a0This framework for historical thinking builds on the National Council for History Education\u2019s Habits of Mind (Bradley Commission on History in Schools, 1995), which encourages students to<\/p>\n Although enacting these habits of mind and reaching mature historical thinking in the average K-12 classroom is a lofty goal, research demonstrates that students in the earliest of grades are capable of \u201cdoing history\u201d and engaging in historical thinking (Brophy, 1990; Dilek, 2009).\u00a0 Booth (1980) wrote that history is an adductive process, where children as young as the age of 4 are able to ask open-ended questions about historical events and can construct productive answers.<\/p>\n Proper and effective historical instruction must begin at the earliest possible age (James & McVay, 2009). \u00a0Delay has no benefit, as children at the youngest of ages are capable of making basic distinctions in historical time (Brophy & VanSledright, 1997; Dilek, 2009) and are able to determine differences between the present day and events in the past (James & McVay, 2009).\u00a0 According to Barton (1996), when children are given the opportunity to learn about the past from familiar sources such as family members, visual images, and tangible objects, they understand history more clearly than when the focus is upon institutional developments.<\/p>\n By the time students have reached the third grade, they are able to distinguish between different time periods, but typically not until reaching the fifth grade are students able extensively to connect particular dates with specific background knowledge (Barton, 1996; Barton & Levstik, 1996). \u00a0This progression calls for innovative pedagogies that foster student learning and improve learning outcomes.<\/p>\n Over the past decade, K-12 social studies teachers have increasingly integrated technology into their classroom history instruction to improve student-learning outcomes (Berson, 2004; Danker, 2000; Green, Bolick, & Robertson, 2010; Hakes & Eisenwine, 2003; Hernandez-Ramos & De La Paz, 2009; Ray & Shelton, 2004; Shiveley, 2004; VanFossen, 2004). \u00a0Researchers predict that technology use in education is increasing and will continue to do so, particularly given the mandates of state and national standards (Green et al., 2010; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2004; Kleiner & Farris, 2002; Newburger, 2001) and as the price to acquire hardware becomes more affordable for the average school budget.<\/p>\n As access to technology increases, many educators argue that, in order \u201cto live, learn, and work successfully in an increasingly complex and information-rich society, students must be able to use technology effectively\u201d (ISTE, 2004, p. 1). \u00a0Similarly, the NCSS (1994) standards asserted that technology and social studies together prepare students to become productive and informed citizens in the 21st century.<\/p>\n Despite these encouraging trends, most teachers are ill prepared to integrate technology in meaningful, innovative ways that engage students in the learning process (Stoddard, 2010). \u00a0More specifically, technology is often used in traditional ways, such as lecture and other modes of direct instruction, and its availability has not produced major changes to practice (Swan & Hofer, 2008). \u00a0To further complicate this problem, the growing availability of technology adds increasing pressure on classroom teachers to find creative ways to use technology to teach content mandated in state and national standards. \u00a0Additionally, teachers must find approaches to use technology in ways that foster content-specific best practice and improve student learning (Deaney, Chapman, & Hennessy, 2009). Identifying more meaningful approaches has become increasingly difficult given 21st-century students\u2019 exposure and access to mobile technologies in a digital age.<\/p>\n Life for digital natives, those individuals born into the digital world of computers, video games, and the Internet, is different than for children from previous generations (Prensky, 2001). \u00a0They have learned to utilize a variety of social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and others, to keep in touch with friends, to learn more about personal interests, and to let the world know additional information about them. \u00a0Researchers posit that the emergence of \u201cubiquitous mobile technologies\u201d will continue to transform the ways students learn, and in turn, the structure of schooling (Bjerede, Atkins, & Dede, 2010).<\/p>\n Social networking is arguably one of the most prolific of these mobile technologies. Students are constantly inundated with embedded badges and hashtags across varied media, including television, the Internet, and even consumer packaging. \u00a0Yet, the social network format has not been fully utilized as an instructional tool to foster student content learning, specifically historical thinking.<\/p>\n This research study explores a project, The Digital Historical Agent Profile Project, in which fifth-grade students engaged in the learning of historical content and were asked to convey information about the life of someone from the past through the medium of the present and future: a social networking profile page.<\/p>\n Method<\/strong><\/p>\n This qualitative case study examined fifth-grade students\u2019 capacities for historical thinking, as the class constructed a technology-enriched Digital Historical Profile (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). \u00a0Working with the researchers, student participants conducted historical investigations based on a historical inquiry model, one that necessitated the use of various sources, sourcing, contextualization, analysis, and corroboration of sources, and the construction of original narratives (Martin, Wineburg, Rosenzweig, & Leon, 2008), to explore the following research questions:<\/p>\n This participatory research project aimed to provide students with innovative and interventionist instructional opportunities designed to foster better understandings of the American Revolutionary period historical content and learn about various historical agents from this time period through the utilization of technology. \u00a0This activist-oriented and participatory project followed a technology-assisted model that involved students in the process of investigating and developing conclusions about the past and the agents who impacted it.<\/p>\n We were interested in learning about students\u2019 capacities for historical thinking as they interacted with various technologies during the historical inquiry process by observing the phenomenon (i.e., historical thinking) and examining the final products constructed (Marshall & Rossman, 2010) over a 6-month period.\u00a0 Specifically, our focus was on the ability of the students to access various sources, analyze the sources, and then construct an original narrative.<\/p>\n Site and Participants<\/p>\n Case study relies on bounded systems, wherein researchers may seek to describe \u201cthe process by which a particular innovation had a particular effect on the participants in the setting\u201d (Gay et al., 2009, p. 427). \u00a0A technology-assisted model for classroom teaching bounded the phenomenon under investigation and historical thinking. \u00a0As such, we purposely selected a fifth-grade classroom at Oak Brook Elementary, an urban school located in a major metropolitan area of over 2 million people.<\/p>\n We selected the classroom at Oak Brook Elementary given the diversity of the school, coupled with a commitment to excellence and improvement in reading for all students but especially for Hispanics and English language learners. The commitment to reading corresponded with our interest in understanding how technology-assisted models, as instructional interventions, can promote critical thinking skills (i.e., historical thinking), practices often linked to reading comprehension (Mendenhall & Johnson, 2010).<\/p>\n Oak Brook Elementary is an A-rated school serving over 350 students from diverse backgrounds, but it struggles to make Adequate Yearly Progress in reading, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act<\/em>, when student performances for Hispanics and English language learners are disaggregated. According to federal race and ethnicity categorizations, 77% are White, 9% Black, 1% Native, 8% Asian, and 4% Multiracial; 59% are Non-Hispanic and 41% Hispanic. \u00a0In addition to racial and ethnic diversity, 42% of students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, and 12% have identified learning disabilities.<\/p>\n We selected the specific classroom at Oak Brook Elementary due to the willingness of the classroom teacher to adopt the technology-assisted model as an instructional intervention into classroom teaching, the teacher\u2019s emphasis on historical thinking through traditional modes of instruction and reading comprehension, and the availability of technological resources. \u00a0Consequently, the participants in this study consisted of the 18 fifth-grade students who were working with the identified classroom teacher on a unit focusing on the American Revolutionary period.<\/p>\n Although we worked collaboratively with the classroom teacher, she was not included in data collection or analysis, since teacher efficacy or pedagogy were not under investigation; rather, the students\u2019 capacities for historical thinking as they interacted with various digital technologies were the focus of the study.<\/p>\n Role of the Researchers in Instructional Interventions<\/strong><\/p>\n Under the traditional instruction of the teacher (i.e., assigned textbook readings, lecture, primary document analysis and other archival research, and independent and guided practice with print documents), each student completed a brief historical biography for an assigned figure from the American Revolutionary period. \u00a0Figures were identified by the teacher and ranged from key political leaders, such as George Washington, to more minority activists, such as Crispus Attucks and Deborah Sampson.\u00a0 After completing this traditional activity, we provided the students with a brief lesson on media literacy. \u00a0In so doing, we collaborated with the teacher as participant observers (as defined by Plano, Clark, & Creswell, 2010) to teach the students how to use various digital technologies, including word processing, Internet searching techniques, social networking formats, and Windows Movie Maker.<\/p>\n Once students were taught how to use the technologies, we provided them with a historical figure profile worksheet (see Appendix A<\/a>) that contained all of the field information found in an identified social networking format. \u00a0Students were told to use their biographies and previously collected research as the preliminary source to complete the worksheet; they were then told to continue their research using a prescribed Internet search engine.<\/p>\n After completing the questionnaire, students were provided with the social networking profile template and were taught how these digital technologies could be used to represent the traditional historical research and biographical writings previously completed under the teacher\u2019s instruction using the historical profile worksheet.\u00a0 Students were asked to construct a complete profile that included synthetic and evaluative elements, including notable achievements and discussion threads, to extend beyond the knowledge\/recall information that appeared in the original biography.\u00a0 Students were given an opportunity to mine for additional information about their individual and to think historically by constructing an interpretative profile that did not rely solely on factual information (i.e., date of birth, occupation, education, etc).<\/p>\n The students met in the instructional technology laboratory 1 day per week for approximately 45 minutes over the course of 2 months to complete the template. \u00a0Once the template was completed, students were given the option to create movies of their profiles using Windows Moviemaker.\u00a0 After implementing the interventionist instructional unit, the researchers analyzed the data collected during instruction to create a grounded survey designed to promote interpretive validity (Maxwell, 1992). \u00a0We then met again with the students to administer the survey.<\/p>\n Data Collection <\/strong><\/p>\n Multiple methods of data collection were used during this study\u2014observational data, informal interviews, surveys, field notes, researchers\u2019 logs, and document analysis\u2014so that we could compensate for the fallibility of any single method (Marshall & Rossman, 2010). \u00a0Using a variety of data collection methods and data sources and making sure that patterns and categories repeat (triangulation<\/em>, Patton, 2002) will bring credibility to the findings and strengthen reliability as well as internal validity (Merriam, 1998).<\/p>\n This participatory research project aimed to provide students the opportunity to learn about the past through a historical inquiry approach to learning about historical content through digital technology integration.\u00a0 As mentioned, we built on this activity by teaching students how to represent the material through innovative technologies.\u00a0 Students learned how to use a variety of technological skills, including how to create a website, use digital image and video editing software, connect peripheral devices to a computer, and conduct authentic digital history. \u00a0We documented student engagement in the creation of the Digital Historical Profiles through qualitative observation and informal interviews (as described in Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). We also employed document analysis to explore participants\u2019 capacities for historical thinking.<\/p>\n Observation<\/strong>s<\/strong>.<\/em> Observations of the students occurred in the instructional technology laboratory.\u00a0 Observations lasted approximately 45 minutes during 1 day per week over a span of 2 months. \u00a0Spradley\u2019s (1980) matrix of participant observation was employed in order to identify ways in which the participants interacted with each of the technologies used during the project and how their use impacted their understandings of the historical content intended to be learned. \u00a0The following nine questions (Spradley, 1980) were used to assist the researchers in the observation process:<\/p>\n Informal interviews<\/strong>. <\/em>Informal interviews were conducted with all 18 participants to determine the participants\u2019 prior experiences and beliefs before the onset of the Digital Historical Profile project.\u00a0 The duration for each interview varied from 5 to 10 minutes, according to the depth of prior experience. \u00a0Interview data were documented through field notes. \u00a0Additional interviews were conducted to gain particulars as to the experiences and content gained by each of the participants during the process of the project (see Appendix B<\/a>). \u00a0These interviews, during which the participants were asked to reflect upon their experiences, the content gained, and the nature of technology integration throughout the project, were used as a foundation for the formation of the surveys.<\/p>\n The initial interviews were also utilized as guides to the focus of observational sessions during the construction of the Digital Historical Profiles (Savenye & Robinson, 1996). \u00a0Spradley\u2019s (1980) Matrix, outlining the elements of an ethnographic interview, was utilized to construct a framework for each of the interview sessions.<\/p>\n Surveys.<\/strong> An anonymous grounded survey (Appendix C<\/a>) was used as a strategy for member checking and ensuring interpretive validity (as recommended by Maxwell, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). \u00a0The questions were constructed to compare researchers\u2019 analysis of students\u2019 experiences with the project based on observation and interview data, and the Digital Historical Profiles against students\u2019 thoughts and reactions to the construction of their profiles. \u00a0Given the member checking and grounded quality, we developed the survey after data collection, analysis, and interpretation; questions on the survey, thereby, reflected the researchers\u2019 analysis of the data. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Field notes and researchers\u2019 log.<\/strong>Field notes were kept to document observations during data collection. \u00a0These notes were used to trigger memory, depict the setting, portray the participants, and add understanding to the data collected. \u00a0The researchers\u2019 logs (Patton, 2002) contain reflections, connections, new questions, and realizations made by the investigators while collecting data that were helpful in the data analysis process.<\/p>\n Student products<\/strong>.<\/strong>The electronic and nonelectronic documents created and collected throughout the project were analyzed. \u00a0These included all activities and data collected by participants (e.g., electronic primary and secondary sources, digital history websites, etc.), as well as the completed Digital Historical Profiles. \u00a0These products assisted us in understanding how the teacher and the students were incorporating technology in the project and how historical content gained was being conveyed.<\/p>\n Data Analysis<\/p>\n All of the data were analyzed, coded, and categorized. \u00a0Analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Erikson, 1986; Patton, 2002) and content analysis (Patton, 2002) were employed in the analysis and interpretation of the data. \u00a0Together, these approaches allowed us to follow a flexible and recursive process consistent with case study that permitted themes and categories to develop. \u00a0During this time, data were examined to support or dismiss formulated themes. Efforts were made to minimize intrusion of researcher bias during the analysis process (as recommended by Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and to understand the intended conveyance of the data. \u00a0In addition, multiple forms of triangulation were used during this study to improve the validity of the findings (see Denzin, 1978; Marshall & Rossman, 2010).<\/p>\n The first interviews and early observations allowed initial salient themes and reoccurring ideas to emerge. \u00a0Throughout the study, emerging themes were added, modified, and eliminated. \u00a0Attention to internal convergence and external divergence were crucial so that each theme remained internally consistent while being mutually exclusive (Marshall & Rossman, 2010). \u00a0The data from later interviews, field notes, researcher\u2019s log, and continued observations were used to adjust the initial themes that emerged and allowed for alternative ideas and explanations to be examined.<\/p>\n The 18 completed Digital Historical Profiles were analyzed utilizing five of the National Council for History Education\u2019s Habits of Mind (Bradley Commission on History in Schools, 1995). \u00a0This framework for analysis provided a methodology for indentifying places where historical thinking occurred in the construction of the profile. \u00a0To declare that historical thinking occurred, the student had to convey<\/p>\n Each Digital Historical Profile was examined, with attention to the five habits of mind (see Table 1).<\/p>\n Table 1<\/strong>\n
\n
\n
\n
\nCoding Scheme for Digital Profiles<\/p>\n
![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v12i2SS1Fig1.jpg\")
Figure 1.<\/strong> Historical profile of Crispus Attucks.<\/em><\/p>\n