Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Using inquiry-based instruction to encourage teachers’ historical
thinking at historic sites
Christine Baron*
Boston University, 2 Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215, USA
h i g h l i g h t s
Conducted pre-post think-aloud protocols at two historic sites.
Intervention was guided inquiry of documents drawn from site.
Protocols assessed against heuristics for historical thinking at historic sites.
Significant improvement in historical problem solving and broader curiosity about the site.
No correlation to experience or intervention structure suggests broad applicability.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 16 February 2012
Received in revised form
1 June 2013
Accepted 24 June 2013
This study explores the use of inquiry-based instruction for constructing historical understanding in
historic site-based teacher professional development programs. In an historic site-based professional
development workshop, fifteen teachers of grades 5 through 12 engaged in guided inquiry with documents drawn from said historic site. Participants showed significantly increased curiosity about the site
and use of problem-solving strategies in interactions with the site and staff, but no improvement in other
elements related to historical thinking at historic sites. Improvements correlated to neither length of
teaching experience nor testing group characteristics, indicating broad applicability for improving historic site-based professional development programs.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
History e study and teaching
Teacher professional development
Museum education
Inquiry-based instruction
Historical thinking
1. Introduction
The characteristics of effective teacher professional development
(PD) programs are clear: They offer teachers opportunities to engage
in inquiry-based, intensive disciplinary study, collaboration with
colleagues, and experimentation with and reflection on practice, via
activities that are embedded within their specific professional contexts (Borko, Jacobs, & Koeliner, 2010; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002;
Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Wei, DarlingHammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).
While history education utilizes the full range of inquiry-based
instructional methods (Olson & Loucks-Horsley, 2000), examination of historical sources, or “source work”, forms the foundation
for disciplinary inquiry and the development of historical thinking
skills, knowledge, and dispositions (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Van
* Tel.: þ1 978 239 6265.
E-mail address: [email protected].
0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.008
Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008; VanSledright, 2010; Wineburg, 1991). As
repositories for troves of source material, much of the disciplinary
PD1 opportunities for history teachers occur at or in partnership
with museums and historic sites (Boyer, Fortney, & Watts, 2010;
Fritzer & Kumar, 2002; Levstik, 2000; Ravitch, 2000). Yet, despite
decades of working with teachers, far too little research exists on
the effectiveness of historic sites’ role in improving teachers’
disciplinary understandings and historical thinking, specifically, or
in supporting effective elements of PD, more broadly. This study
seeks to address these gaps.
Part of the deficit in our understanding is due to the nature
of the questions that drive research in museums. Alternately
described as “informal” or “free choice” learning environments
(Falk, 2004), museums seek to create situations in which visitors
direct highly personalized investigations to satisfy their own curiosity, rather than to meet an external standard (Csikszentmihalyi &
1
Professional Development.
158
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Hermanson, 2001; Davis & Gardner, 2001). Accordingly, research in
museums often focuses on attitudinal and affective changes or
retrospective descriptions of the influence previous visits had on
personal development, rather than on immediately measurable
learning outcomes (Gupta, Adams, Kisiel, & DeWitt, 2010; Kang,
Anderson, & Wu, 2009; Peacock, 2006; Smithsonian Institution,
2004). Evaluation of programs which, based on their instructional
methodology, could provide measurable disciplinary outcomes,
often describe site-specific results via action research or case
studies that speak neither to teacher preparation nor to generalizable program outcomes (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008;
Hunner, 2001; Olivera & Jovana, 2010).
It is within these informal settings that goal-driven, outcomebased, formal teacher PD programs are set, but quantifiable program or methodological outcomes rarely appear in the professional
literature on museum education. Instead, educators write effusively
about the many ways they can support teacher and student
learning, emphasizing school-museum partnerships (Fortney &
Sheppard, 2010; Simon, 2010), PD and outreach programs
(McRainey & Moisan, 2009; Ragland & Woestman, 2009), museum
learning theory (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Falk, Dierking, & Foutz,
2007), or “generic learning outcomes” (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007;
Peacock, 2006). Most of the existing methodological studies on
learning in museums derive from science or art museums (e.g., Bell
& Linn, 2000; Eberbach & Crowley, 2009; Housen, 2002; Luke,
Stein, Foutz, & Adams, 2007; Yenawine, 1998), not history museums or historic places, and the content learning and instructional
methodologies are not directly transferable. While the informal
education ethos of historic sites certainly embraces the “spirit” of
inquiry, there is little evidence to show how historic sites support
the development of the processes and competencies necessary to
effectively engage in authentic inquiry either at the sites or via
subsequent classroom integration (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki &
Grenier, 2008; Tseng, Tuan, & Chin, 2013).
The best data available about the role of historic sites in teacher
PD programs comes from the Teaching American History (TAH)
grant program. Operant from 2001 to 2012, the U.S. government
funded TAH grants required grantees to partner with museums,
historic sites, or archivesdan acknowledgment of the important
role historic sites could play in history teacher PD (Melendez,
2008). While there was considerable variability within these
partnerships, the broad outlines of TAH programs included structures typical of PD programs found in nations that achieve high
scores on international benchmarks such as PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), including intensive-content area
studies, collaboration with colleagues, and integration of studies
into work environs (Wei et al., 2009). Yet, after a decade of working
in close concert with historic sites, program analysis revealed that
across the spectrum of historic sitesdhistoric homes, museums,
archives, heritage sites, battlefields, and othersdthere is no
consensus on how to best use them in formal teacher education
beyond mere “enrichment” experiences (Humphrey et al., 2005; Tal
& Steiner, 2006; Tal, Bamberger, & Morag, 2005; U.S. Department of
Education [USDOE], 2011).
Within TAH programs, historic sites most often served as passive
“field trip” destinations, rather than opportunities for active analysis (Hall & Scott, 2007; Zeisler-Vralsted, 2003). Despite more than
two decades of research outlining how to successfully incorporate
field trip programs into larger educational goalsdsuch as orienting
students to the surroundings and learning agenda, clarifying
learning objectives, planning pre- and post-visit materials that
integrate the visit into larger curricular goals (DeWitt & Osborne,
2007)dTAH programs modeled few of these recommendations.
When programs were situated at historic sites, visiting professors presented materials significantly more often than the site
staff (Humphrey et al., 2005), indicating that historic site staff may
have hosted TAH programs, but were not deeply engaged in instruction. When at the sites, visiting professors rarely engaged the
teachers in source analysis, but rather in “show-and-tell” sessions
(Long, 2006; Pesick & Weintraub, 2003) employing passive
instructional methods, particularly lecture (Hall & Scott, 2007;
Moyer, Onosko, Forcey, & Cobb, 2003; Pesick & Weintraub, 2003;
Warren, 2007; Zeisler-Vralsted, 2003). Thus, the programs missed
opportunities to have experts model inquiry with archival materials, historic structures, or material culture for deep historical
exploration at these sites.
It is apparent that there are considerable missed opportunities
for encouraging inquiry and historical thinking at historic sites. Part
of this has been due to the lack of clarity about what disciplinary
historical thinking at historic sites entails. The literature on historical thinking, starting with Wineburg’s 1991 study to the more
recent studies (e.g., De La Paz, 2005; Hynd-Shanahan, Holschuh, &
Hubbard, 2004; Leinhardt & Young, 1996; Nokes, Dole, & Hacker,
2007; Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995; Rouet, Favart, Britt, & Perfetti,
1997; Tally & Goldenberg, 2005; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998;
Wineburg, 1991, 1998; Yang, 2003, 2007) has centered on either
understanding how historians work with traditional documents or
assessing teachers’ and students’ use of multiple documents as the
means for encouraging historical thinking. However, no one has
considered what impact using these methods for inquiry-based
analysis of archival document sets would have as a way to prepare individuals to analyze historic sites. The current study addresses this gap as well.
1.1. Outline of current study
In the current study, the author followed 15 history teachers in
grades 5 through 12 through pre-post think-aloud tours of two
historic sites in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Think-aloud tours are
similar to think-aloud protocols in which subjects articulate their
thoughts related to a specified task (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). In this
study, the participants toured the sites without the use of any
particular interpretive media (pamphlets, notes, audio tours, etc.)
and recorded their thoughts related to what they saw into handheld voice recorders.
The two historic sites, the Old South Meeting House (OSMH) and
the Old North Church (ONC) are similar in their construction and
most significant time period (18th century), geography (Boston,
Massachusetts, USA), and physical appearance (large, open, singleroom, historic Protestant churches with box pews and overhanging
galleries). Participants conducted their think-aloud tour of the OSMH
with little prior preparation (reading the “history” section from
OSMH’s website). This was done to simulate the way teachers might
typically encounter new historic sites. The think-aloud of the
ONC was conducted after participants engaged in a guided inquiry
(Windschitl, 2003) exploration of archival document sets via an online hypermedia program entitled Tories, Timid, or True Blue? (TTTB).
These encounters were assessed for instances of historical
thinking against the author’s framework for assessing historical
thinking at historic sites (Baron, 2012). This framework was
developed in a previous study in which the author replicated
Wineburg’s 1991 study and followed historians through the Old
North Church, Boston, to determine what constituted historical
thinking at historic sites. The framework presents five elements of
historical thinking historians use at historic sites:
- Origination: As historians attempt to understand the multiplicity of choices, interested parties, and conditions involved in
the origins of the building, they pose the question: How did this
building come to be in this place?
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
- Intertectonality: To understand what is distinct about the
building that is the subject of analysis, historians situate the
building intertectonallydin a field of related buildingsdto
draw comparisons related to the form and function of the
building being studied. The question they ask is: How does what
they do or did here compare with what has been done elsewhere?
- Stratification: Historians approach buildings as inherently
layered artifacts. Accordingly, they sift through the multiple
strata of time evident within a single place to locate individuals,
events, or building elements within their proper context. The
central question of stratification is: What are the multiple time
periods evident in this building and what do they tell me about its
history?
- Supposition: Using data gathered via the previous heuristics,
historians pose hypotheses to explore the reasons behind the
existence of particular physical evidence, events, or phenomena. The question they ask is: Given the available evidence, my
prior knowledge, and how I understand the world to work, what
plausible scenario or outcome could explain this feature or
phenomenon?
- Empathetic insight: Historians use the data gathered via the
previous heuristics to consider the affective factors acting upon
and within the historic agents related to the site. The question
they ask is: Given the available evidence, my prior knowledge,
and how I understand the world to work, how would the people
who occupied this space have responded (socially, emotionally,
intellectually) to the space and the circumstances of the time?
(Baron, 2012, p. 834)
What follows is a discussion of the multiple measures, materials,
and methods of analysis used to discern the effectiveness of using
inquiry-based analysis of archival document sets for encouraging
historical thinking at historic sites in a PD program setting. These
include: an explicit exposition of the coding systems employed;
quantitative and qualitative reporting of results by historical
thinking category; relationship between teacher experience and
program outcomes; assessment of the integration of pedagogical
content knowledge into teacher-created materials; a description of
related findings and their implications; and finally, a discussion of
these findings for employing this inquiry-based approach for
stimulating historical thinking at historic sites and the role of these
methods in teacher PD programs.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Table 1
Teacher experience score point values.
Education
S
Years of
teaching
S
Certification
S
Bachelor’s
MA
MAþ <30
MAþ 30
1
2
3
4
1e3
4e6
7e10
11e15
16e20
21e25
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other
Generalista/humanitiesb
Social studiesc
History
1
2
3
4
a
Generalist licensure requires that teachers show proficiency in English, history,
mathematics, and science on a state licensure exam, while holding a degree in one of
those areas. This is usually used for teachers who teach upper-level elementary (5th
grade) or where 6th grade is not considered part of how a particular school district
delineates middle school.
b
Humanities licensure requires either a degree in English or history and certifies
teachers to teach in either or both content areas. This is primarily licensure for
middle school teachers.
c
Social studies licensure is no longer offered in Massachusetts. While many
teachers with social studies licenses taught history classes, prior to its elimination,
applicants could receive licensure with degrees in subjects such as political science,
psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Holding social studies licensure indicates
that a teacher received his or her initial certification under previous regulations and
has kept that licensure valid through continued professional development. This is
distinctly different from history licensure, which requires a degree in history, with
which teachers may only teach history.
prior training or experience had a significant effect on learning
outcomes. Accordingly, participants were assigned an “experience
score” (S) based on their educational level, years of teaching, and
certification area (see Table 1). The maximum experience score
possible was 14 (education plus years of teaching plus certification).
Once their experience scores were determined, participants
were assigned to one of three testing groups, with every effort
made to ensure relative comparability between the groups. Group
distribution is shown in Table 2. The three groups and their interaction with TTTB simulated normal use conditions: the field trip,
the independent off-site user, and the seminar. The group characteristics were as follows:
- Two-day group, “the field trip”: Similar to how most individuals and PD groups visit the site, this group’s experience
simulated the typical field trip experienceda structured program (TTTB), followed by a tour of ONC.
Table 2
Teacher experience chart.
Teacher
Participants were recruited via fliers distributed through local
PD networks. The 15 participant teachers taught in both public and
private schools, in suburban and urban settings in grades 5 through
12. As teachers attending PD programs are typically either uncompensated or receive a small stipend for their time, ONC provided each participant with nominal compensation ($200), as well
as PD credentials for their participation. Though none chose to,
participants had the right to withdraw from the study, but still
participate in the exploration of TTTB as a PD activity and receive
the credentials and stipend.
Due to complicated scheduling concerns, participants indicated
their top two preferences for group assignments. Accordingly,
beyond their professional credentials, assignment was based on
participant availability rather than any other specific attribute.
Given that teachers at different phases of their professional
careers have different levels of preparation, experience, needs, and
expectations of PD (Day & Gu, 2007; Vermunt & Endedijk, 2011), it
was essential to denote the differences at the outset to determine if
159
Subject area
certification
Experience
score (out of 14)
average score 10.4
7e10
5
11e15
9e12
21e25
9e12
4e6
5
21e25
5
Generalist
History
History/ELL
Special Needs
Special Needs
7
12
13
9
11
Three-day groupdgroup average score 8.8
T(3)6
Bachelor’s
1e3
9e12
T(3)7
Master’s
4e6
8
T(3)8
Master’s <30
7e10
5
T(3)9
Master’s
4e6
Ke12
T(3)10
Master’s þ30 11e15
8
T(3)11
Master’s þ30 21e25
9e12
History
History
Social Studies
Special Needs
Social Studies
History
6
8
9
5
11
14
Five-day
T(5)12
T(5)13
T(5)14
T(5)15
History
History
History
Generalist
7
8
7
10
Two-day
T(2)1
T(2)2
T(2)3
T(2)4
T(2)5
Educational
level
groupdgroup
Master’s
Master’s þ30
Master’s <30
Master’s <30
Master’s <30
Years of
teaching
Grade
level
groupdgroup average score 8
Bachelor’s
4e6
8
Master’s
4e6
9e12
Master’s
1e3
9e12
Master’s <30 16e20
6
160
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Table 3
Gender and ethnicity distribution.
Two-day group
Three-day group
Five-day group
Male
Female
African-American
Non-Hispanic
Caucasian
2
2
3
3
4
1
1
1
0
4
5
4
- Three-day group, “independent off-site user”: Mimicking the
experience of self-directed learners who use web-based
learning tools as preparation for coming on site, members of
the three-day group were trained using one TTTB module on
site at ONC and then sent home to work on the subsequent two
modules at their own pace. Upon their return to ONC, they
toured the church.
- Five-day group, “the seminar”: Akin to many PD or graduate
courses, the seminar group met for five consecutive Mondays
and encountered a different module during sessions 2 through
4, and in session 5 toured ONC.
Despite different formats, all three test groups encountered
TTTB materials for approximately 3 h. Members of the different
groups were aware that there were other groups of teachers, but
were unaware of the different characteristics of the groups. At no
point did any of the individuals interact with anyone in any of the
other groups.
Individual teachers are noted accordingly: The T indicates that
they are teachers (as distinct from historians); the parenthetical
number indicates which test group they were in, the two-day,
three-day, or five-day groups; and the final number is assigned as
an individual signifier. Therefore, T(2)4 indicates that teacher
number 4 is from the two-day group.
While gender and ethnicity were not considered factors for
assignment, 7 participants were male and 8 were females; 2 were
African-American and 13 were non-Hispanic Caucasian. Distribution across groups is shown in Table 3.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Tories, timid, or true blue (TTTB) interaction
Each group encountered three online TTTB modulesdByles,
Pulling, and Humphriesdfor approximately one hour each, totaling
three hours of exposure. Each of the TTTB modules is comprised of
18 archival documents, both primary and secondary sources,
structured around “solving” a historical problem related to the
impact of the events of April 18, 1775, the evening of Paul Revere’s
famous ride, on members of the ONC’s congregation.2
Participants were paired with other group members and asked
to discuss the problem, the documents, and their reasoning aloud
so that they could be recorded. These sessions were recorded, but
recording problems resulted in incomplete data sets; therefore, the
process in which participants encountered TTTB materials could
not be fully considered.
Fig. 1. Interior of the old north church, view from Altar.
their sessions. The purpose of these tours was to determine the
effect of using TTTB on historical thinking related to an historic
site (Figs. 1e4).
While the OSMH is slightly larger than the ONC, the most significant difference between the sites is the amount of interpretive
media available for visitors. At the OSMH, the entire back wall of the
meeting house contains interpretive panels and dioramas depicting
the nearly 300-year history of the site. Participants were given no
specific instructions to either engage or ignore the information. At
ONC, a church with an active congregation, there was no interpretive media of any kind to inform visitors to the site, only on-site
2.2.2. Pre-post think-aloud tours of old south meeting house and
old north church
One week prior to their work with TTTB, all three test groups
spent the first day of their sessions doing think-aloud tours of the
OSMH. Following their interaction with TTTB, participants similarly recorded think-aloud tours at the ONC on the final day of
2
The full set of materials and instructions are available at http://www.oldnorth.
com/schoolprograms/tories/index.htm.
Fig. 2. Interior view of the old south meeting house from center gallery.
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
161
Using handheld digital voice recorders, participants conducted
15-minute individual think-aloud tours of the site, in which they
described how they were interpreting what they saw. Each of the
tours was transcribed verbatim and coded against the author’s
framework.
As museums and historic sites are complex, social, highly
discursive settings, discourse analysis has been used to great effect
to evaluate the complexities of thinking and learning that occurs
within them (cf. Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knutson, 2003). Accordingly,
discourse analysis was the primary method of analysis for the
current study.
2.2.3. Post-tour discussions
After participants individually toured the historic site, they
were gathered into their testing group for a post-tour discussion
in which they had the opportunity to ask interpretive staff
any questions they might have that were raised by their tours.
These discussions were analyzed for both frequency and quality
of questions raised by participants. Quality of questions was
assessed against Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(1965).
2.2.4. Pre-post lesson plans
After the tours, participants wrote lesson plans indicating how
they would use the historic site in their classrooms, answering the
following questions:
Fig. 3. Exterior view of the old north church from Salem street entrance.
guide staff who could answer questions or make short presentations. Participants did not interact with the guide staff, nor did
they attend any guide presentations.
All three test groups proceeded through the historic sites on
different days, and there was no interaction between the groups.
1) How would you use the OSMH/ONC with the classes that you
teach?
2) Sketch out a lesson plan (including an objective, brief discussion of procedures, and evaluation).
3) If you were to visit the OSMH/ONC, what would you have your
students do once there?
4) How would you use this information/activity once back in your
classroom?
5) Is there other information that you would like to have to help
construct your lesson(s)?
The lesson plans were then evaluated against the following
criteria:
1) What types of in-class activities were planned to prepare students for a visit?
2) What types of on-site activities were planned while students
visited the site?
3) Where do the lesson objectives/activities fall on Bloom’s
taxonomy?
4) Does the lesson planned encourage specific historical thinking
skills?
5) Does the lesson incorporate primary sources, multiple documents, or emphasize interpretation?
6) What type of evaluation/integration into classroom activities
occur after site visit?
2.3. Coding
Fig. 4. Exterior view of old south meeting house, Washington street entrance.
One of the challenges of evaluating historical thinking at historic sites was determining the best coding system for evaluating
how participants handle the varied textual elements within the
sites. For example, interpretive displays are largely text-based,
with artifacts displayed and contextualized by the text. However,
the sites are also replete with text-heavy memorial plaques
or other permanent features of the buildings, placed there in
accord with the building’s function (e.g., panel listing the Ten
Commandments in ONC).
162
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
The tours of the buildings, both OSMH and ONC, were coded
using this author’s framework designed specifically to address the
peculiarities related to buildings, rather than documents. As the
plaques are vital to the function and purpose of the building as a
whole, the text on the memorial plaques can be considered part of
the building. Thus, participants’’ statements in relation to memorial
plaques were coded accordingly.
The OSMH/ONC tours were transcribed verbatim and the full
protocols were coded according to the author’s framework. Of
interest, though, was the difference in both the quality and quantity of
the speech and historical analysis the teachers presented; therefore, a
further layer of coding to permit quantitative discourse analysis was
devised to represent the complexity evident in the utterances.
2.3.1. Historical utterances: chunks and pieces
Of interest to this study was the difference in both the quality
of the speech offered, as well as in the quantity of utterances
indicating the different types of historical thinking. Initially,
each whole historical-thinking utterance, comprised of multiple
single thoughts, was calculated as a single instance of historical
thinking:
Example: The rectors’ plaque . . . It does appear that Mather
Byles left in 1775. So what did he do in thatdwhat is it, a year?
He left in 1776 with the British in Halifax. What did he do in the
year that he was still in Boston when he was not rector of the
church?
However, it became evident that this system of enumeration,
where a statement comprised of 5 individual thoughts could be
weighted the same as a statement with 20 individual thoughts,
masked the level of complexity evident within the historicalthinking utterances. Therefore, the following dual coding
scheme was devised to improve granularity (Chi, 1997): Prior to
coding the transcripts, each single thought was isolated and
designated an utterance (a single thought ¼ 1 utterance)
(Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2001). Then, when coding
the transcript, when a historical-thinking utterance (comprised
of multiple single utterances) was detected, it was counted as a
single historical-thinking utterance. Then, the individual utterances within the historical-thinking utterance were tallied
separately. In other words, large “chunks” of historical thinking
were broken down into smaller “pieces” to provide better insight
into the data. Thus, using the same historical-thinking utterance
(chunk) as above, note the additional divisions of single utterances (pieces) in Table 4.
In this way, it is possible to see both the frequency and
complexity of the historical thinking presented in the pre- and
post-TTTB sessions. What follows are the transcript division rules
for delineating single thoughts out of the larger transcript and
the logic behind them. When it was not immediately clear
whether statements indicated single or multiple utterances, the
Table 4
Detail of division of historical-thinking utterance.
Historical-thinking
utterance
Utterance
1
1
2
3
4
5
The rectors’ plaque.
It does appear that Mather Byles
left in 1775.
So what did he do in thatdwhat
is it, a year?
He left in 1776 with the British in
Halifax.
What did he do in the year that he was
still in Boston when he was not rector
of the church?
audio tapes of the tours were consulted to determine where
participants paused, thus indicating natural delineation of speech.
2.3.2. Division rules
(1) No Division: Statements that were not divided.
a. Complete sentences
Complete sentences or independent clauses present as
single thoughts and were not divided.
Example: The light pours in through tall windows.
Example: Did they come here because it was expected of
them?
b. “Like,” “you know,” “I mean”
Participants frequently used placeholders such as “like,”
or “you know,” or “I mean” in their utterances. No sentence
division at these statements.
Example: You know, in you know, in so for, you know, in a
community like this, for 50, 70 whatever years or whatever
you know?
c. Repetitions
Closely occurring, exact repetitions are treated as one
utterance.
Example: I guess they just have, I guess they just have,
um, pictures of the death masks.
d. Dependent clauses
Dependent clauses remain linked to the sentence, are
considered part of that sentence, and the sentence is
treated as a single utterance.
Example: So much of history is all about men, especially
when you get to revolutionary history here.
Example: And just on a side note and somewhat irrelevant
to what we’re doing here, at the actual Mount Vernon, the
mold that they used to make a plaster bust of Washington,
I’ve always learned that that was the most realistic to his.
e. Quotes/readings from interpretive panels
Instances of reading text from interpretive panels or plaques as a whole are treated as a single thought, even if
multiple sentences are read, as they do not directly constitute participants’ own thoughts. Commentary following or
interspersed within the reading of a text are treated as
separate utterances.
Example: Wow.look at this letter from William Lloyd
Garrison to his son: “Too long our revolutionary fathers have
been held up as the noblest of patriots and the truest friends
of liberty. They were too cowardly and too selfish to adhere to
the principles they laid down. And they entailed upon their
posterity as great a curse as could be inflicted.” That is pretty
amazing. It’s not, uh, it’s not a sentiment that is often
expressed.
Division:
1
2
3
4
5
Wow.
look at this letter from William Lloyd Garrison to his son:
“Too long our revolutionary fathers have been held up as the
noblest of patriots and the truest friends of liberty. They were
too cowardly and too selfish to adhere to the principles they
laid down. And they entailed upon their posterity as great a
curse as could be inflicted.”
That is pretty amazing.
It’s not, uh, it’s not a sentiment that is often expressed.
f. Single-word declarations
Throughout the tours, participants frequently made
single-word declarations such as, “Cool!” “Neat,” “Wow,” or,
“Interesting.” These declarations were treated as single
thoughts.
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Example (following the reading of an interpretive panel):
“Revere Pew . . . Paul Revere’s son, Joseph Warren Revere . . .
still owned by his descendants . . .” Wow! Cool.
Division:
1 “Revere Pew . . . Paul Revere’s son, Joseph Warren Revere . . . still owned by his
descendants . . .”
2 Wow!
3 Cool.
(2) Division: Statements that were divided
a. Compound sentences
Compound sentences are treated as two separate utterances.
Example: Why was that there and why was there was a
need for that?
Division:
1
2
Why was that there
and why was there was a need for that?
Example: I thought I heard it had something to do with the
sound, the way the sound reverberates when a preacher’s
preaching from the pulpit, but we always thought it was kind
of funny, because it looks like something that could probably
crush him if it broke . . .
Division:
1
2
I thought I heard it had something to do with the sound, the way the
sound reverberates when a preacher’s preaching from the pulpit
but we always thought it was kind of funny because it looks like
something that could probably crush him if it broke . . .
b. Fragments
Fragments are separated out and considered a single
thought. This determination was due, in part, to the frequency with which fragments signaled a shift in the speaker’s
thinking and did not refer back to an original sentence.
Example: Also wondering . when I’m looking at the
people walking in here . . . who sat . . . okay this is a place of
interest in Boston, what it is to gain from it?
Division:
1
2
3
4
5
Also wondering
when I’m looking at the people who walking in here
who sat
okay this is a place of interest in Boston,
what it is to gain from it?
c. Abrupt shifts
Occasionally, participants will abruptly change the direction of their commentary, making a statement, and then
moving on to an entirely unrelated statement. These shifts
count as separate utterances:
Example: I think that is definitely, well many historians
would probably look at it as an extension of Puritanical
views that stretch back to the very beginning of the [Old
South Meeting House].
Division:
1
2
I think that is definitely,
well many historians would probably look at it as an extension of
Puritanical views that stretch back to the very beginning of the [Old
South Meeting House].
163
3. Results
The results compare utterances from the pre-test (OSMH) to the
post-test (ONC) tours for correlation between instances of historical
thinking and experience, testing group, and individual teacher
results. Pre-post test results were evaluated in both “chunks” and
“pieces.”
3.1. Individual teacher results
Teachers’ transcripts were divided according to the aforementioned rules. Table 5 is a tabulation of the historical-thinking utterances (chunks) from the pre-TTTB interpretations of OSMH,
followed by the post-TTTB interpretation of ONC. In question is
whether there is any increase in historical-thinking utterances, and
if so, whether it is statistically significant.
Using the data in Table 5, the null hypothesis that there is no
difference in the number of historical-thinking utterances between
the pre- and post-treatment data was tested: The null hypothesis is
rejected with p < 0.001. The observed mean of differences between
the pre- and post-treatment data is 3.12. The 95% Confidence
Interval for the mean difference in historical utterances is
(4.57, 1.66), indicating a statistically significant increase in the
number of historical utterances (totaled over all five categories:
Origination, Intertectonality, Stratification, Suppositions, Empathetic Insight and coded against this author’s model). The effect
size, based on the SD from the two means, is 1.10 (Cohen’s d).
In Table 6 is a tabulation of individual utterances (pieces) from
the pre-TTTB interpretations of OSMH, followed by the post-TTTB
interpretation of Old North. In question again is whether there is
Table 5
Pre- and post-TTTB historical utterances (chunks).
Pre-TTTB Tours (OSMH)
Origin.
Intertect.
Stratif.
Supp.
Emp.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
Total
0
1
2
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
16
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Post-TTTB Tours (ONC)
Origin.
Intertect.
Stratif.
Supp.
Emp.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
Total
2
2
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
1
0
2
3
1
0
17
2
3
0
1
6
5
5
0
0
2
0
2
6
2
0
34
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
6
2
0
19
1
4
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
6
1
4
3
0
27
Experience
Score
7
12
13
9
11
6
8
9
5
11
14
7
8
7
10
Experience
Score
7
12
13
9
11
6
8
9
5
11
14
7
8
7
10
164
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Table 6
Pre- and post-TTTB individual utterances (pieces).
Pre-TTTB Tours (OSMH) Out of total number of words (N ¼ 1935)
Origin.
Intertect.
Stratif.
Supp.
Emp.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
11
30
3
16
0
21
0
0
0
8
4
72
26
0
194
0
11
32
0
43
0
47
0
0
0
0
31
0
27
0
148
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
40
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Post-TTTB tours (ONC) out of total number of words (N ¼ 2445)
Origin.
Intertect.
Stratif.
Supp.
Emp.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
Total
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
7
95
29
0
12
0
24
0
20
0
43
8
67
47
0
352
21
16
0
0
6
22
6
0
0
19
0
15
31
10
0
146
7
13
0
7
30
24
36
0
0
8
0
9
39
12
11
196
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
100
0
150
Experience
Score
7
12
13
9
11
6
8
9
5
11
14
7
8
7
10
Experience
Score
7
12
13
9
11
6
8
9
5
11
14
7
8
7
10
any increase in historical-thinking utterances, and if so, whether it
is significant.
According to the data in Table 6, the null hypothesis that there is
no difference in the number of individual utterances between the
pre- and post-treatment data is rejected with p < 0.01. The
observed mean of differences between the pre- and post-treatment
data is 28.4. The 95% Confidence Interval for the mean difference
in individual utterances is (47.74, 9.06) indicating a statistically
significant increase in the number of individual utterances (totaled
over all five categories). The effect size, based on the SD from the
two means, is 0.813 (Cohen’s d).
Thus, as indicated above, there was a statistically significant
increase in both the number of historical-thinking utterances
(chunks) as well as the individual utterances (pieces).
3.1.1. Correlation between historical thinking and experience.
As indicated in Table 2, the experience score for the two-day group
(10.4) was slightly higher than both the three-day group (8.3) and
the five-day group (8). To determine if this disparity would have
any significant effect on the TTTB testing outcomes, the following
tests were calculated to determine if there was any correlation
between experience and (a) the number of pre-treatment historical
utterances (totaled over all five categories: Origination, Intertectonality, Stratification, Suppositions, and Empathetic Insight);
(b) the number of post-treatment historical utterances; (c) the total
number of historical utterances (pre þ post); and (d) the differences
in the number post- and pre-treatment historical utterances
(post pre). None of these data turned out to be significantly
correlated with experience. Both the Pearson (parametric) and
Spearman (non-parametric) correlation measures were calculated.
Accordingly, despite the difference in experience scores between the groups, there was no significant correlation between
experience and historical thinking, thus mitigating concerns about
the disparity.
3.2. Discussion of results by historical thinking categories
3.2.1. Origination. Discourse about originationdquestions about
the circumstances of the building’s originsdwas virtually absent
from the teachers’ tours at both the OSMH and ONC. At the OSMH,
across all three test groups, there were no statements that indicated
an attempt to discern the origin of the building. At the Old North,
despite starting outside, across the street, facing the building with
the 1723 cornerstone and Paul Revere Memorial Plaque, only three
teachers made any mention of the exterior or questioned what the
date might signify.
Part of this may have been due to time constraints: The teachers
were given 15 min to tour both sites. At ONC, many participants
used that time to seek out references and “search images” (Falk &
Dierking, 2000, p. 118) related to individuals discussed within the
TTTB modules or reconfirm what they had seen within the program
(e.g., seating chart). Additionally, the situations presented within
TTTB neither emphasize the origins of the Old North’s congregation, nor its existence as a physical structure.
3.2.2. Intertectonality. In their post-TTTB session at the Old North,
the instances of intertectonal analysis, making comparisons about
and between buildings, increased from 19 total utterances (1.26 per
person) at OSMH to 27 total instances (1.8 per person) at Old North.
However, when specific references to OSMH were removed from
the calculations, the frequency of intertectonal analysis pre- and
post-TTTB were identical (19 at OSMH to 19 at ONC, or 1.26 to 1.26
per person), thus calling into question whether those references
were the result of having been at OSMH in direct association with
this study, rather than spontaneous instances of intertectonality.
Similar to the historians’ attempt to situate the Old North Church
within the context of a similar set of buildings, teachers frequently
cited their personal houses of worship to indicate the similarities or
differences with the buildings that they saw. However, beyond their
own houses of worship, there appeared to be a smaller visual catalog of buildings from which they drew their connections.
The intertectonal references made at the Old South Meeting
House are shown in Table 7; those made at the Old North Church
are shown in Table 8.
While the teachers did not draw upon the same deep visual
memory of similar buildings from the time period as the historians,
they did employ the intertectonality heuristic at both OSMH and
ONC. Where historians presented a series of as many as 5e7 buildings among which to situate the Old North, the teachers would most
frequently indicate a single building or historic site against which to
compare the OSMH or Old North.
Additionally, the language they use to describe these other sites
or buildings is not as precisely differentiated in terms of using the
Table 7
Teacher intertectonal analysis at old south meeting house.
Similar, but different
Most like OSMH
“looks like a courtroom”
“Protestant-based” churches Catholic Churches
“other churches with booths”
Old North Church
“Typical colonial buildings”
Mt. Vernon
Lowell Mills (questioning
if they similarly required
attendance)
“classic historical landmark”
Not alike at all
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Table 8
Teacher intertectonal analysis at old north church.
Similar, but different
Most like Old North
Not alike at all
“the Jesus painting is
more Anglo-Saxon
than in other churches”
“Colonial style buildings”
Congregational Meeting
house
“the panes, the columns,
paneling, the pulpit”
“Very simplistic
New England Church”
“That hanging structure at
OSMH”
“Not like most other
churches that don’t
have ties to the
Revolution”
“Thought it would be
more European”
names of artistic movements, architectural elements, or time periods. Where, for example, the historians precisely described the
Old North’s architectural elements in terms of “tripartite Georgian
symmetry,” or made connections to the Enlightenment or Anglican
influence on the architecture, the teachers seemed to have a far less
differentiated sense of the time period, or at least, the specific vocabulary to describe it.
3.2.3. Stratification. The teachers employed the stratification heuristic with approximately the same frequency at OSMH as at ONC,
though, at both sites, the teachers relied upon the written materials, as presented in either the interpretive panels at OSMH or the
memorial plaques at ONC, to provide them with “the story,” rather
than attempting to derive meaning from the buildings themselves.
There were three significant interpretive elements at OSMH that
should have assisted the teachers in stratifying what they
encountered: First, a series of interpretive panels, arranged chronologically, provide the major elements of OSMH’s story, including
images of the evolution of its physical plant. Second, there is a
timeline running the entire length of the meeting house that indicates when major events at the Old South occurred alongside
other important events in American history (e.g., the Civil War.)
Third, the building was under renovation during their tours, and
interpretive signs were posted at each work site indicating what
was being done to the building and for what purpose. However,
rather than stimulating analysis, the teachers would read a panel,
sign, or the timeline and then move on to the next panel with little
more discussion than noting that it was “interesting.”
Similarly, at the Old North, the teachers used the memorial plaques to provide clues to the larger story and then paused to consider
the information. The chief difference between ONC’s memorial plaques and the interpretive panels at OSMH is that the memorial
plaques were installed ad hoc to memorialize specific individuals,
from the mid-1800s to the present, and are part of the building’s
historic fabric rather than a coordinated attempt to interpret the
building. Thus, the stratifications rendered at ONC required a deeper
read of the building itself, rather than just following the storyline.
However, this neither encouraged nor discouraged instances of
stratification, relative to their experiences at OSMH.
3.2.4. Suppositions. For a supposition to rise to the level of historical thinking it must contain four elements: (1) a connection to the
physical space; (2) discussion of specific historic agent(s); (3) a
hypothesis; (4) connection to prior knowledge. For example:
T(2)5d“The steeple was restored in 1912 by the descendants of
Paul Revere.” Well that’sdnow that’s againdmakes me wonder if
his descendants were involved in the preservation has something
to do with why he gets all the credit.
1) Connection to the physical space: Revere Plaque on front of
Church
2) Specific historic agent(s) Paul Revere; his descendants
165
3) A hypothesis:
a. makes me wonder if his descendants were involved in the
preservation has something to do with why he gets all the
credit
4) Connection to specific prior historical knowledge (one of the
TTTB Modules): The conflict between Pulling and Newman
families about determining who gets credit for hanging the
lanterns.
Following their TTTB experience, the teachers frequently began
to present hypotheticals, posing questions, often in connection
with content from the TTTB documentation to try to make meaning
out of some part of the physical structure of the building.
Similar to historians, when the teachers were unable to draw
upon prior knowledge to interpret the Old North and its story, they
turned to suppositions in an attempt to reconcile disparate elements. Of all of the results, the most significant is the imbalance of
the instances of suppositions before and after TTTB exposure: Mean
for individuals Pre 0.267 to Post 2.267.
Further, at ONC, there were an additional 14 separate instances
where the teachers clearly employed a problem-solving strategy
that, though similar to supposition, missed one of the four elements necessary to qualify as a supposition. The element most
frequently absent was connection to prior historical knowledge.
While these 14 statements do not rise to the level of the supposition heuristic, they indicate a larger shift in the teachers’ perceptions of the material encountered at the Old North as “a
problem to be solved” (Fischer, 1971, p. xv). If taken with the
statements that do meet the criteria for supposition (14 problem
solving þ 34 suppositions ¼ 48; average of 3.2 per teacher),
teachers minimally viewed the information presented at ONC as
something they needed to wrestle with, which stands in marked
contrast to the relative passivity (2 instances total; 0.13 average) of
their tours of the OSMH.
3.2.5. Empathetic insight. Only three of the teachers offered any
empathetic insight commentary, most of which occurred in the
post-TTTB session at Old North. As empathetic insight draws
heavily upon the ability to use prior knowledge to contextualize the
experiences of historic agents, the teachers’ ability to connect what
they encountered at the Old North with the larger historical record
was limited, thus hampering their ability to engage in empathetic
insight.
Only T(5)14 offered an extended discussion that synthesized
much of what had been presented in TTTB, presenting a macro
analysis of the congregation as an “actual living society” and “part
of a very vibrant community,” layering in different historical agents,
their actions and perspectives. This discussion was unique among
the recordings, as it presented the only instance where a teacher
stepped back and took in the building holistically, integrating
multiple aspects of TTTB, as opposed to a single instance or
segmented elements. One other teacher, T(2)3, presented empathetic insight statements in his tour of OSMH and ONC, but made no
explicit content connections to TTTB. The third teacher, T(3)9, made
a single reference to “the Humphries” family from TTTB while
standing in the gallery next to their family seat, but then moved on
to discuss other elements of the building.
3.3. Lesson plans
Following their tours of both OSMH and ONC, the teachers
created lesson plans that asked them what they would do with
students on site and how would they relate the visit back to their
classroom work. Analysis of the lesson plans revealed TTTB had a
positive effect on how teachers would present the Old North to
their students and integrate it into their classrooms.
166
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Table 9
Group 3 pre-tour questions.
Post-OSMH tour question session (elapsed time: 2:12)
Post-ONC tour questions (elapsed time for full discussion: 10:57)
R: Do you have any questions?
T (3)1: I didn’t know a lot about OSMH at all before this,
which is pretty evident, so I’m pretty much going
completely from the dark.
R (to T(3)3): That is perfectly fine. Do you have any questions?
T(3)2: No, no questions.
R: Okay.
R: (to T(3)4): Do you have any questions?
T(3)4: Nope.
dIs that the lantern that was referred to in the plaque that Gerald Ford dedicated?
dWhy are the pews are so much higher here than they are at OSMH?
dAll these windows are part of the original design?
dI was wondering, um, the bust of [George] Washington? In a church? Politics and religion?
I couldn’t figure that out, why it was there? Why so prominent?
dAs we’ve been looking at the story behind the Newman-Pulling [controversy], and yet there’s
so much commemoration in this church of [Newman]. I’m assuming you will want to provide
some counterpoint, because, you’re not going to eradicate that, the plaques, the kneeling
cushions, you know?
dI was just wondering what if there are any major changes, architecturally in the building?
Because I picture it a certain way. I’m picturing the people that we case studied in their pews
or up in the balcony. I’m just curious if there are any major changes.
dWhat are the flags? And are they all colonial flags?
At OSMH, the most frequently occurring type of lesson was a
“scavenger hunt,” wherein students collect isolated facts about
OSMH and its role in American history, or “journaled” about their
feelings about being at the site. Lessons emphasized “information
gathering,” with little to no in-depth tie-in to regular curricular
activities. Ten of the 14 lesson plans followed this pattern. None of
the 14 lessons indicated any use of primary sources or artifact
analysis, either before, during, or after their visit. All of the lesson
objectives were ranked as either knowledge or comprehension
against Bloom’s taxonomy.
These lessons stand in marked contrast with those written after
TTTB exposure. All 14 lessons indicated use of primary sources. Of
those lessons, 11 make explicit mention of the use of TTTB modules.
All of the lesson objectives were ranked as either analysis or evaluation against Bloom’s taxonomy. More significantly, they integrated
the visit more fully into their return to the classroom than at OSMH,
describing strong, specific content links and instructional objectives.
3.4. Post-tour discussions
The effect of the different interpretive modes (e.g., reading premade interpretive materials versus construction of historical understanding via use of document sets) appears most starkly in the
pre-tour question-answer session.
Following their tour of the OSMH, the teachers had very few
questions about what they had encountered either in the prereading, the exhibits, or the building proper. The three groups
spent on average 5:14 min asking the guide questions about OSMH.
Conversely, the sessions following the ONC tour averaged
12:02 min, and participants peppered the guide with questions,
offered partial hypotheses on subjects ranging from inquiries about
the objects in the church to reconciling specific elements of the
scenarios found within TTTB. Participants repeatedly asked questions about the Old North considerably beyond the TTTB content.
For example, outlined in Table 9 is the entire question sessions
for the 3-day group following their solo think-aloud tours of OSMH,
Table 10
Instances of use of the word “wonder”.
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
Total
4
5
2
7
4
22
Teachers OSMH/ONC (average time 15 min.)
Teacher T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 Total
OSMH
ONC
3
8
2
4
1
4
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
7
2
1
3.5. Wonder
In the course of analyzing the transcripts, beyond the strictures
of this author’s frameworks for historical thinking, an intriguing
pattern of word usage appeared. Following their encounters with
TTTB, teachers were significantly more likely to use the word
“wonder,” as in, “I wonder,” or “I am wondering,” when touring
ONC than in their pre-TTTB tour at OSMH.
At the OSMH, more than half (12) of the 22 uses of the word
“wonder” indicated navigational concerns, e.g., “I wonder if you can
get up to the balcony easily”; the remaining 10 instances indicated
non-navigational expressions of curiosity. However, at ONC, there
were 76 occurrences, all of which were non-navigational expressions of curiosity, e.g., “‘Pew 30 for use of his Excellency the Governor
and other Gentlemen.’ I wonder at what point they stopped deeding
the pews? At what point could your average Joe come in and just sit
in church?” (Table 10)
A two-tailed t-test (assuming unequal variance) between the
historians in the previous study (Baron, 2012) and the teachers at
ONC showed that there was no significant difference in their usage
of “wonder.” However, a two-tailed paired t-test between the
participants’ usage at OSMH (mean of 1.47 uses of “wonder”) versus
participants’ usage at ONC (mean of 5.07 uses) showed a statistically significant difference, p ¼ 0.00985. While the use of the word
“wonder” is not on its own a measure of historical thinking, it
serves as an indicator of the overall increase in engagement and
curiosity about the ONC following TTTB exposure.
4. Discussion
Historians ONC only (average time 52:40)
Historian
versus just the questions asked by that same group’s post-TTTB solothink-aloud ONC Tour:
The difference between the tours at OSMH and ONC appear to be
in the curiosity stimulated in the teachers by their experience with
TTTB. The questions evident in the ONC tour indicate both
connection to the content they encountered in TTTB and a sense of
trying to place what they know within the context of the building
set before them. The comparatively flat experience with OSMH
indicates a lack of stimulation of that same sense of curiosity.
2
9
0
0
3
18
0
10
1
1
4
4
2
8
22
76
As stated in at the outset of this paper, this study addressed the
need to assess specific methods for improving teachers’ disciplinary understandings in PD programs set at historic places.
Accordingly, 15 teachers from grades 5 through 12 participated in
inquiry-based instruction using archival document sets drawn from
an historic site. Participants’ pre-post think-aloud tours of two
historic sites were analyzed against a framework for assessing
historical thinking at historic sites. Similarly, pre-post teacher-
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
created materials were assessed for improved complexity of
thought, use of primary sources, and integration of content materials into classroom activities.
Consistent with the larger body of literature on the effectiveness
of inquiry-based learning (Brand-Gruwel & Stadtler, 2010; Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002; Feldman & Pirog, 2011; Hynd-Shanahan et al.,
2004; Kuhn, 1993; Marusic & Slisko, 2012; Nokes et al., 2007; Rouet
et al., 1997; Wiley & Voss, 1999) as a model for encouraging teacher
learning, the investigation of the document sets at the center of this
study had a positive effect on participants’ interaction with and
curiosity about the historic site. Further, post-exposure lesson plans
revealed greater complexity of thought, increased use of primary
sources, and integration of site materials into classroom activities.
These improvements were shown across all levels of teacher
experience and independent of the specific use condition (singleday field trip, independent off-site user, or multi-day seminar).
Thus, the process of engaging in document-based source work
incited curiosity about the related historic site, a necessary precursor to historical thinking, but not historical thinking itself.
4.1. Integrating elements of effective professional development at
historic sites
Although there is broad consensus that high-quality PD provides
teachers a community of learners within which to explore active,
inquiry-based practice and opportunities to both model preferred
instructional strategies and experience them as learners prior to
teaching (Borko et al., 2010; Knapp, 2003), there remains little systematic evaluation of these elements, either in isolation or combination (Knapp, 2003; Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2009).
Accordingly, the current study is significant in that it serves as “existence proof” (Borko, 2004, p. 5) for the effectiveness of source work
as instructional practice for use in historic site-based PD programs.
As none of the improvements significantly correlated to either
experience or testing group, this indicates broad possibilities for
application, despite relatively short exposure. While there is substantial agreement that single session workshops do not create
sustained improvement in teacher learning or performance (Garet
et al., 2001; Wilson & Berne, 1999), the one day “field trip” remains
a default model for professional development at historic sites.
Rather than offering passive tours or lectures, historic site can use
the inquiry method outlined here to address two of the core features of effective PDdcontent focused, active-learning (Desimone,
2009)dto support the larger goals of the PD program.
For historic sites, this study provides a critical model for not just
improving the overall PD experience, but improving the transferability of the materials from the historic site into the teachers’
professional practice. Beyond pure disciplinary learning, the dramatic shift in the quality of lesson plans becomes a critical indicator
of change within the teachers’ professional domain (Clarke &
Hollingsworth, 2002). By allowing teachers to experience a
preferred instructional practice as a student, before having to teach
it (Buczynski & Hansen, 2010; Knapp, 2003; Van Duzor, 2010), the
participants were able to make meaningful connections between
what they learned on-site with the needs of their particular classrooms. Framing the inquiry into the document sets in terms of the
choices that historic agents made provided teachers a way into the
story of the historic site, modeled how to offer what they learned to
their students, and the materials to effectively enact that transfer.
4.2. Changing the expectations of professional development at
historic sites
When significant numbers of teachers report that professional
development merely reinforces what they are already doing, it is
167
little wonder that they are “lukewarm” about their PD experiences
(Hill, 2009, p. 472; Hudson, McMahon, & Overstreet, 2000). It is
essential that teacher educators employ methods and materials
with which teachers can fully engage and that they can enjoy, but
also effectively change perceptions and practice. Thus it is significant that the participants of this study repeatedly stated that they
enjoyed the experience of being at the ONC better than at OSMH
because they felt a connection to it; that the effect of having to
piece together the story for themselves caused them to approach
ONC in a more historian-like manner, in that what they encountered was another documentary piece in an historical puzzle. These
results are consistent with previous studies in which participants
work with multiple documents to piece together historical understanding (e.g., De La Paz, 2005; Hynd-Shanahan et al., 2004; Nokes
et al., 2007; Tally & Goldenberg, 2005), but this is the first such
study in which the site of the PD was considered as part of the
historic record and open to interpretation.
The greater reach of the curiosity engendered appears to be in
how providing an open-ended preparatory experience for the
participants changed the teachers’ “entrance narrative” (Doering &
Pekarik, 1996; Tsybulskaya & Camhi, 2009) and expectations of how
they were to work with an historic site. Comprised of the “fundamental way that individuals construe and contemplate the world,
what they know about a particular topic, and an amalgam of their
personal experiences, emotions, and memories” (1996, p. 20),
Doering and Pekarik argue that the entrance narrative is the single
most powerful determinant in shaping a museum visitor’s on-site
experience.
Based on prior experiences with historic sites, the teachers had
preconceptions about the materials they encountered, what was
expected of them and what they expected of their site experiences.
At the outset, the teachers came to OSMH with a sense that the
definitive story would be told about the historic site. Similar to
reading a textbook without footnotes or visible authors, the
teachers’ “reading” of OSMH indicated a largely passive acceptance
of the material presented, with little questioning of the source or
validity of the story (Paxton, 1997, 1999).
Conversely, when the teachers entered the Old North, after using TTTB, their entrance narratives shifted. Their understanding of
and experience with the ONC was one of ongoing research and of
open-ended questions. Accordingly, the teachers appeared much
more open to questioning the authority of the historic site
(Trofanenko, 2006). Thus, the documentary inquiry not only
changed the instructional approach they chose for their ONC lessons, but their expectations of the historic site and its accessibility
as an historic resource.
This is a critical operational understanding for those that would
offer PD programs at historic sites: Passive programs beget passive
learners. Mere proximity to historic places does not provide intellectual access to them. If a disciplinary, inquiry-based learning
program like TTTB can change the “fundamentals” of how teachers
encounter historic sitesdfrom enrichment to sites for active analysisdit is well within the reach of every historic site to become a
truly effective partner in teacher professional development.
5. Conclusion
For educators interested in working with teachers at historic
sites, these results are significant. As schools and universities
increasingly partner with historic sites, it is critical to understand
what programs used therein offer the most effective engagement at
the sites, but also ensure content integration once back in the
classroom. While use of multiple historical documents does not
perfectly replicate historians’ thinking, it engenders greater curiosity and engagement than static interpretive materials and tours.
168
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
This study models how disciplinary inquiry-based instruction can
be used at historic sites to encourage better integration of site
materials back in the classroom. It also invites serious questions
about what combination of historical materials and investigations
would be necessary to stimulate true historian-like historical
thinking at historic sites.
References
Baron, C. (2012). Understanding historical thinking at historic sites. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 833e847.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good.
Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for
learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8),
797e817.
Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: classification of educational goals, Vol. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher
professional development. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), Third
international encyclopedia of education, Vol. 7 (pp. 548e556). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Boyer, J., Fortney, K., & Watts, S. (2010). The changing landscape of museumprovided professional development for teachers. In K. Fortney, & B. Sheppard
(Eds.), An alliance of spirit: Museum and school partnerships (pp. 57e64).
Washington, DC: AAM Press, American Association of Museums.
Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2010). Solving information-based problems:
evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 175e179.
Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on
teacher practice: uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26(3), 599e607.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical
guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271e315.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in
schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education,
86(2), 175e218.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional
growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947e967.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in museums:
why does one want to learn? In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The educational role of
the museum London: Routledge.
Davis, J., & Gardner, H. (2001). Open windows, open doors. In E. Hooper-Greenhill
(Ed.), The educational role of the museum. London: Routledge.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional
learning and development: sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a
career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423e443.
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy
mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139e156.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher,
38(3), 181e199.
DeWitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2007). Supporting teachers on science focused school trips:
towards an integrated framework of theory and practice. International Journal of
Science Education, 29(6), 685e710.
Doering, Z. D., & Pekarik, A. J. (1996). Questioning the entrance narrative. Journal of
Museum Education, 21(3), 20e25.
Dudzinska-Przesmitzki, D., & Grenier, R. S. (2008). Nonformal and informal adult
learning in museums: a literature review. The Journal of Museum Education,
33(1), 9e22.
Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: how
children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research,
79(1), 39e68.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Falk, J. H. (2004). The director’s cut: toward an improved understanding of learning
from museums. Science Education, 88(SI), S83eS96.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., & Foutz, S. (2007). In principle, in practice: Museums as
learning institutions. New York: Atla Mira Press.
Feldman, A., & Pirog, K. (2011). Authentic science research in elementary school
after-school science clubs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5),
494e507.
Fischer, D. H. (1971). Historians’ fallacies: Toward a logic of historical thought. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fortney, K., & Sheppard, B. (Eds.). (2010). An alliance of spirit: Museum and school
partnerships. Washington, DC: AAM Press, American Association of
Museums.
Fritzer, P., & Kumar, D. (2002). What do prospective elementary teachers know
about American history? Journal of Social Studies Research, 26(1), 51e59.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915e945.
Gupta, P., Adams, J., Kisiel, J., & Dewitt, J. (2010). Examining the complexities
of school-museum partnerships. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5,
685e699.
Hall, T. D., & Scott, R. (2007). Closing the gap between professors and teachers:
“uncoverage” as model of PD for history teachers. The History Teacher, 40,
257e263.
Hill, H. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7),
470e476.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, and performance. London: Routledge.
Housen, A. (2002). Aesthetic thought, critical thinking and transfer. Arts and
Learning Journal, 18(1), 99e132.
Hudson, S. B., McMahon, K. C., & Overstreet, C. M. (2000). The 2000 National Survey
of Science and Mathematics Education: Compendium of Tables: Funded by the
National Science Foundation.
Humphrey, D. C., Chang-Ross, C., Donnelly, M. B., Hersh, L., & Skolnik, H. (2005). Evaluation of the teaching American history program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
Hunner, J. (2001). Historic environment education: using nearby history in classrooms and museums. Public Historian, 33(1), 33e43.
Hynd-Shanahan, C., Holschuh, J. P., & Hubbard, B. P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: college students’ reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of
Literacy Research, 36(2), 141e176.
Kang, C., Anderson, D., & Wu, X. (2009). Chinese perceptions of the interface
between school and museum education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5,
665e684.
Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of
Research in Education, 27, 109e157.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319e337.
Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: distance and
expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 441e486.
Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.). (2003). Learning conversations in
museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levstik, L. (2000). Articulating the silences: teachers’ and adolescents’ conception of
historical significance. In P. N. Stearns, P. Sexias, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.),
Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives
(pp. 284e305). New York: New York University Press.
Long, K. A. (2006). Reflections on TAH and the historian’s role: reciprocal exchanges
and transformative contributions to history education. The History Teacher, 39,
493e508.
Luke, J. J., Stein, J., Foutz, S., & Adams, M. (2007). Research to practice: testing a tool
for assessing critical thinking in art museum programs. Journal of Museum
Education, 32(2), 123e135.
McRainey, L. D., & Moisan, H. (2009). Artifacts as inspiration: building connections
between museum educators and classroom teachers. In R. Ragland, &
K. Woestman (Eds.), The teaching American history project: Lessons for history
educators and historians. New York: Routledge.
Marusic, M., & Slisko, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching
physics on the gain in students’ development of reasoning. International Journal
of Science Education, 34(2), 301e326.
Melendez, M. L. (2008). Teaching American history. The Federalist, 2(19).
Moyer, J., Onosko, J., Forcey, C., & Cobb, C. (2003). History in perspective (HIP): a
collaborative project between the University of New Hampshire, SAU #56, and
13 other school districts. History Teacher, 36, 186e205.
Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Characteristics of university
students’ Inquiry in individual and computer-supported collaborative study
process. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the first
European conference on CSCL (pp. 462e469). Maastricht, the Netherlands:
Maastricht McLuhan Institute.
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use
heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3),
492e504.
Olivera, G., & Jovana, M. (2010). Intercultural dialogue in education: critical reflection
in the museum context. Odgojne ZnanostieEducational Sciences, 12(1), 151e165.
Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education
standards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press.
Paxton, R. J. (1997). ’Someone with like a life wrote it’: the effects of a visible author on
high school history students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 235e250.
Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: history textbooks and the students who
read them. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 315e339.
Peacock, A. (2006). Changing minds: The lasting impact of school trips, a study of the
long-term impact of sustained relationships between schools and the National
Trust via the Guardianship scheme. London: National Trust for Places of Historic
Interest or Natural Beauty.
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning:
Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pesick, S., & Weintraub, S. (2003). DeTocqueville’s ghost? Examining the struggle for
democracy in America. History Teacher, 36, 231e251.
Ragland, R., & Woestman, K. (2009). The teaching American history project: Lessons
for history educators and historians. New York: Routledge.
C. Baron / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 157e169
Ravitch, D. (2000). The educational background of history teachers. In P. N. Stearns,
P. Sexias, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National
and international perspectives (pp.143e155). New York: New York University Press.
Rouet, J., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple
documents in history: effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction,
15(1), 85e106.
Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.
Smithsonian Institution. (2004). The evaluation of museum education programs: A
national perspective. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy and Analysis.
Tal, T., & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacheremuseum staff relationships: school
visits to the educational center of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Science
Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 25e46.
Tal, T., Bamberger, Y., & Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural history
museums in Israel: teachers’ roles. Science Education, 89, 920e935.
Tally, B., & Goldenberg, L. B. (2005). Fostering historical thinking with digitized
primary sources. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 1e21.
Trofanenko, B. (2006). Interrupting the gaze: on reconsidering authority in the
museum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 49e65.
Tseng, C.-H., Tuan, H.-L., & Chin, C.-C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry
teaching: perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science
Education, 43(2), 809e825.
Tsybulskaya, D., & Camhi, J. (2009). Accessing and incorporating visitors’ entrance
narratives in guided museum tours. Curator, 52(1), 81e100.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Office of planning, evaluation and policy
development, policy and program studies service, teaching American history
evaluation: Final report. Washington, D.C.
Van Drie, J., & Van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: towards a framework for
analyzing students reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review,
20(2), 87e110.
Van Duzor, A. G. (2010). Capitalizing on teacher expertise: motivations for
contemplating transfer from professional development to the classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 363e374.
VanSledright, B. (2010). What does it mean to think historically.and how do you
teach it? In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research and practice (pp.
112e120) New York: Routledge.
169
VanSledright, B. A., & Kelly. (1998). Reading American history: the influence of using
multiple sources on six fifth graders. Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 239e265.
Vermunt, J. D., & Endedijk, M. D. (2011). Patterns in teacher learning in different phases
of the professional career. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 294e302.
Warren, W. J. (2007). Closing the distance between authentic history pedagogy and
everyday classroom practice. History Teacher, 40, 249e255.
Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. School Redesign Network, National Staff
Development Council.
Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent: promising professional
development models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 207e212.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: tasks
that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301e311.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Chapter 6: Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development, Vol. 24, pp. 173e209.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what can
investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom
practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112e143.
Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: an expert/expert study in the
interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319e346.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem-solving: a study of the cognitiveprocesses used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73e87.
Yang, S. C. (2003). Computer-mediated history learning: spanning three centuries
project. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 299e318.
Yang, S. C. (2007). E-critical/thematic doing history project: integrating the critical
thinking approach with computer-mediated history learning. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23(5), 2095e2112.
Yenawine, P. (1998). Visual art and student-centered discussions. Theory Into Practice,
37(4), 314.
Zeisler-Vralsted, D. (2003). The Wisconsin collaborative united states history professional development program. History Teacher, 36, 221e230.