Disciplinary thinking in history involves utilizing logic to critique and assemble empirical evidence, and the end product takes the form of a story. Thus, the combination of logical thinking and narrative thinking is integral to the practice of history, but cognitive psychologists such as Bruner (1986, 2002) point out that such a combination is both rare and difficult; logic and narrative can mix as poorly as oil and water. This is concerning, because non-fiction or "empirical" stories are not only important to history, but to interpreting contemporary journalistic accounts. Like good historians, citizens participating in today's media-saturated democracies must combine narrative and logic when deciding on their responses to news stories about candidates and events. Improving such thinking can improve democratic discourse in political realms increasingly dominated by "spin."
The research questions of the proposed project are:
History educators and researchers have roundly criticized school instruction that has overly emphasized memorization and recall of isolated facts, recommending instead the development of critical understanding of how historians make sense of the past (e.g., Barton & Levstik, 2004; Brophy & VanSledright; Holt, 1990; Levstik & Barton, 1997; National Center for History in the Schools, 1994; Seixas, 1996; Shemilt, 1987; VanSledright, 1998; Wineburg, 1997, 1999, 2001). This is often achieved through instructional practices that involve "doing history" by examining primary sources, usually leading to artifacts (textual accounts, presentations, museum-style exhibits, reenactments) that have narrative elements to them. Researchers (e.g., Barton & Levstik, 2004; Davis & Yeager, 2001) have cautioned against ways narrative can lead to oversimplifications in learning history. But narrative cannot be banished altogether from historical discourse.
Historiographers (e.g., Cronon, 1992; H. White, 1987; R. White, 1998) and interdisciplinary psychologists (e.g., Bruner, 2003; Carretero & Voss, 1994; Wertsch, 2002) have shown that history's products are inevitably created with reference to narrative structure, and consumed based in part on their interpretations as stories. Peter Novick's (1988) work reveals that the basic "facts" of history are subjectively determined by historians' agendas. William Cronon (1992) has explicated how historians sometimes end up telling widely differing tales of progress or tragedy, even when they do not disagree on what "the facts" were (see also Polman, 2005, 2006b).
Both teachers and students are likely to fall into the trap of narratives "erasing" their logical, critical stance when confronting stories that just sound right (Wills, 1994). To address this problem, VanSledright (1998, 2001) has argued for learners explicating their "positionalities" in order to achieve history education that transfers to everyday cognition.
In order to foster more sophisticated thinking about empirical stories, I propose: (1) investigation of a representational system for narratives called "storygrams", and (2) research on learning activities that incorporate storygrams and "narrative metacognition" in the consumption and production of empirical narratives. My plans are grounded in a sociocultural approach (e.g., Polman, 2004, 2006a; Wertsch, 1998, 2002) for designing learning environments (Collins, 1996; Pea & Gomez, 1992).
The notion of "storygrams" (Polman, 2005, 2006b) is inspired by findings in research on how inscriptional systems contribute to mathematics and science learning (e.g., Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Linn & Hsi, 2000; Roschelle, 1992; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003) and practice (e.g., Hall, et al., 2004; Latour, 1978). Within the course of conversations, diagrams can help learners and practitioners "make their thinking visible" in ways that allow them to mediate their ideas productively. In science and math education, "concept maps" (Novak, 1990) have been used in a similar fashion. Storygrams allow learners to make their ideas about narratives visible within a diagrammatic format, so that they can more clearly discuss them. Storygrams represent story interpretations at an intermediate level of abstraction, simultaneously scaffolding learners and providing frames for thinking (White, 1993). This is similar to Bell's (2002) argument maps, which describe scientific arguments using primitive categories from the discipline: "my theory", "evidence for", and "evidence against".
The primitive categories for storygrams are Kenneth Burke's (1979) pentad, which Bruner (2005) has referred to as the "universal arguments of action." Storygrams describe each event using the pentad (see Figure 1):
Figure 1: One event in a storygram
Each event is centered on the action (what happened), carried out by agents (who did it), utilizing cultural tools (how they did it), in order to serve goals (why they did it), within the context of some scene or interpreted context (where/when it happened). Tensions between pentad elements drive the story forward, and each major event appears along a timeline.
Project funding would enable the refinement of the StoryGraph computer tool,
currently in testing prototype. When complete, it will allow users to create,
manipulate, store and share storygrams for free, on any computer with internet
access, using controls similar to those in popular web-based computer games.
Following software testing techniques recommended by Nielsen (1994), a small,
paper-based user test of the basic functionality of the system will be conducted
in the Fall with volunteer college students (who will receive a small cash incentive
for participating in the study). This will inform the development of a fully
functioning web-based version of the StoryGraph tool in which users could create
and save their representations of empirical narratives, and hyperlink them to
original source material and/or discussion text (as in Knowledge Forum, Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 1994). The project will then carry out another small user test
with college students in the Spring, to allow for final refinement of the tool.
Extensive use of the computer StoryGraph tool during the Summer will be embedded
in a series of learning activities designed to take advantage of "narrative
metacognition."
Metacognition is a powerful aspect of thinking (e.g., Bruer, 1993; White & Frederiksen, 1998). Metacognition in reading involves monitoring one's understandings, and in problem solving involves checking for errors. Project activities will seek to educate learners in the following metacognitive practices important to empirical narratives: monitoring perspectives, precedents, symbolism, and the "story frames" used to "spin" accounts. Good history teachers encourage learners to focus on the perspectives and biases of those who created the artifacts and accounts used as sources (e.g., Britt & Aglinskas, 2002; Holt, 1990; Levstik & Barton, 1997). The "precedents" or existing accounts with which the hearer is familiar also influence a hearer’s assessment of credibility. This is similar to law, where previous legal decisions shape reactions of the courts to new cases which are essentially narratives crafted to link to precedents that will provide beneficial interpretations (Bruner, 2002). In literature and language arts classrooms, students often analyze symbolism that helps create meaning in fictional stories, but such considerations are rare in the context of history or journalism. Compelling metaphors or images, either explicit or implicit, strengthen the reception of empirical narrative texts or multimedia artifacts (Beach and Myers, 2002). Finally, "frame monitoring" is an essential aspect of a critical stance toward empirical narratives. Although accusing political opponents of spin has become commonplace, all sides in political arguments place events in a preferred frame; the question is how honestly or deceitfully. Lakoff (2004) has popularized the notion that overarching narrative frames influence political storytelling. Critical consumption of empirical narratives should include attention to facts excluded by the narrative frame, as well as unsupported assumptions bolstered simply because they make sense in the storyline.
The above framework will support the learning environment to be researched in a "history camp" in summer 2007 hosted by the Catoctin Center for Regional Studies (sponsored by Frederick Community College & the National Park Service). The camp will begin with critiquing empirical narratives, and be followed by constructing empirical narratives. In the first phase, participating middle-school aged youth will take fieldtrips to local historical sites, and learn about a local "true" legend, then they will critique alternate versions of the legend using storygrams and a process whereby group members take on metacognitive roles including monitoring perspectives, precedents, symbolism, and narrative frames. This is similar to Palincsar & Brown's (1989) proven "reciprocal teaching" method. In the second phase, participants will create short digital video documentaries (Goodman, 2003) about other local history. They will conduct research on the topics through visits and use of primary sources, and then plan their videos using storygrams and traditional storyboards. They will use techniques adapted from "digital storytelling" (Lambert, 2002) initiatives to complete digital photo stories compiled onto a DVD with youth-created "Director’s Commentary".
The data collection and analysis will focus on refining the theoretical frameworks and improving practice. Videorecorded observational data, interviews, and artifacts produced during the camp will be analyzed utilizing an interpretive case study approach (as in Gordin, Polman, & Pea, 1994; O'Neill & Polman, 2004; Polman, 2000, 2004, 2006a; Polman & Pea, 2001).
The final products will be a set of studies with specific local history investigations and resources, a refined theory of how people learn to think in empirical and narrative terms about the past, and a free, web-based tool for critiquing and planning empirical narratives.
This project will contribute to Spencer's focus on "Teaching, Learning, and Instructional Resources" by improving the intellectual and material resources that contribute to successful teaching and learning of history, and that also improve democratic participation in discourse about historical and contemporary events. It is grounded in known challenges to good teaching in the discipline, and offers promise of increasing opportunities to learn. It draws upon and contributes to research findings while applying to a practical experiment. The project will study technology-mediated learning experiences with the StoryGraph tool and digital storytelling tools that advance disciplinary understanding and sensemaking and simultaneously provide for formative assessment of students' progress in learning.
Joseph L. Polman, the principal investigator, has authored numerous studies of technology-supported inquiry learning in science and history, as well as curricula (Missouri Historical Society, 2001; WRI & TERC, 1999). He will refine the theoretical grounding throughout the year, lead the data collection as a participant observer, and complete the analysis. He will act as participant observer during data collection at the history summer camp, and perform data analyses.
The web-based StoryGraph tool will be developed in collaboration with the Technology Integration Group (TIG) at UMSL, which specializes in applying advanced information technologies to problems in education and learning sciences fields. The team is led by Eric Aplyn. All team members have experience in related projects.
The Catoctin Center for Regional Studies will provide expertise in the discipline of history, and local history inquiries involving concern for logic and narrative.
Bartlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (originally published in 1932).
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common
good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beach, R., & Myers, J. (2001). Inquiry-based English instruction: Engaging
students in life and literature. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bell, P. (2002). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible
for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.),
CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449-485). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., and
Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing,
supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369-398.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify
and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485-522.
Brophy, J., & VanSledright, B.A. (1997). Teaching and learning history in
elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bruer, J. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, life. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Bruner, J. (2003). The narrative construction of reality. In M. Mateas &
P. Sengers (Eds.) Narrative intelligence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Bruner, J. (2005). Keynote presentation. First Congress of the International
Society of Cultural and Activity Research (ISCAR), Seville, Spain, September,
2005.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carretero, M., & Voss, J. (1994). Cognitive and instructional processes
in history and the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and
film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou
& E. De Corte & R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives
on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347-361). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronon, W. (1992). A place for stories: Nature, history, narrative. Journal
of American History 78(4), 1347-76.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher,
19 (1), 3-13.
Davis, O.L. Jr., Yeager, E., & Foster, S. (Eds.), Development of historical
empathy: Perspective taking in social studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
Goodman, S. (2003). Teaching youth media: A critical guide to literacy, video
production, and social change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gordin, D.N., Polman, J.L., & Pea, R.D. (1994). The Climate Visualizer:
Sense-making through scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 3 (4), pp. 203-226.
Hall, R., Lehrer, R., Lucas, D. & Schauble, L. (2004). Of grids and jars:
A comparative analysis of representational infrastructure and learning opportunities
in middle school and professional science. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy,
A. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Embracing diversity in the learning sciences:
The Proceedings of the Sixth Fifth International Conference of the Learning
Sciences (ICLS), 238-245.
Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination and understanding.
New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant!. Vermont: Chelsea Green.
Lambert, J. (2002). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community.
Berkeley: Digital Diner.
Latour, B. (1988). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.),
Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levstik, L., & Barton, K. (1997). Doing history: Investigating with children
in elementary and middle schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewis, E. L., and Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of
adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements.
J of Res in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657-677.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning
partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Missouri Historical Society (2001). Through the eyes of a child [CD-ROM]. St.
Louis: Missouri Historical Society.
National Center for History in the Schools (1996). National standards for history.
Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools. Available: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/nchs/standards/
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools
for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Novick, P. (1988). That noble dream: The 'objectivity question' in the American
historical profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Neill, D. K., & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate "little scientists?"
Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 41 (3), 234-266.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering
and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. M. (1992). Distributed multimedia learning environments:
Why and how? Interactive Learning Environments, 2 (2), 73-109.
Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through
guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning
environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22 (4), 431-466.
Polman, J. L. (2005). True stories, storied truth: Stitching narrative and logico-scientific
discourse together in an age of "spin". Paper presented at the First
International Society for Cultural and Activity Research (ISCAR) Congress, Seville,
Spain, September.
Polman, J. L. (2006a). Mastery and appropriation as means to understand the
interplay of history learning and identity trajectories. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences. 15(2), 221-259.
Polman, J. L. (2006b). True stories, storied truth: Stitching narrative and
logico-scientific discourse together in an age of "spin". To appear
in Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2006.
Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
Polman, J. L. & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural
tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223-238.
Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale. Austin: University of Texas Press
(trans. Laurence Scott).
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building
communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Scholes, R., and Kellogg, R. (l966) The nature of narratives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding. In
D. Olson & N. Torrence (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development
(pp. 765-783). Oxford: Blackwell.
Shemilt, D. (1987). Adolescent ideas about evidence and methodology in history.
In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 62-99). London:
Falmer.
Suthers, D., and Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of
representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 12(2), 183-219.
VanSledright, B.A. (1998). On the importance of historical positionality to
thinking about and teaching history. International Journal of Social Education,
12 (2), 1-18.
VanSledright, B.A. (2001). From empathic regard to self-understanding: Im/positionality,
empathy, and historical contextualization. In O.L. Davis, Jr., E. Yeager, &
S. Foster (Eds.), Development of historical empathy: Perspective taking in social
studies (pp. 51-68). Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wertsch, J.V., & Polman, J.L. (2001). The intuitive mind and knowledge about
history. In B. Torff & R.J. Sternberg, (Eds.), Understanding & teaching
the intuitive mind (57-72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
White, B. Y. (1993). Intermediate abstractions and causal models: A microworld-based
approach to science education. In Proceedings of the world conference on artificial
intelligence in education (pp. 26-33). Charlottesville, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition:
Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1),
3-117.
White, H. (1987). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical
representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
White, R. (1998). Remembering Ahanagran: Storytelling in a family's past. New
York: Hill and Wang.
Wills, J. (1994). Popular culture, curriculum, and historical representation:
The situation of Native Americans in American history and the perpetuation of
stereotypes. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4 (4), 277-294.
Wineburg, S. (1997). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the
interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22 (3), 319-346.
Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80(7), 488-499.
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting
the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
World Resources Institute and TERC (1999). DataScape Instructor Guide. Washington
DC: World Resources Institute.