Content uploaded by Matthias Zimmermann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthias Zimmermann on Sep 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Toolbox
„Orchestrating whole-class discussions for
historical reasoning“
Matthias Zimmermann & Chiara Fürst
(2nd edition, July 2021)
Center of
Teacher
Education (ZELF)
Preparing and
conducting whole-class
discussions
ÓZimmermann, M. & Fürst, C. (2021). Toolbox „Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning“. Freiburg: University of
Freiburg, Center of Teacher Education.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
1
The following toolbox is the result project "Socrates 2.0 – Orchestrating whole-class
discussions for learning" funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF).
Authors: Dr. Matthias Zimmermann and Chiara Fürst
English translation: Dr. Matthias Zimmermann
Center for Teacher Education at the University of Fribourg/Freiburg (CH)
Funded by University of Fribourg Centenary Research Fund
2021
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
2
Introduction
Classroom discussions – discussions led by the teacher with the whole class – are very
frequent in history lessons and are therefore of great importance for the quality of history
education in general. However, it is not uncommon for the teacher to find the discussion
unsatisfactory and for the students to find class discussions frustrating. One reason for this
is that whole-class discussions are often conducted in a somewhat unprepared and
unsystematic manner. This does not have to be the case and can be easily avoided with a
few simple steps during lesson planning.
The following toolbox is intended to help with this planning and offers some subject-specific
strategies for conducting whole-class discussions. It was created based on findings from the
Socrates 2.0 project
1
, tested in teaching practice and re-design afterwards. From this,
suggestions were developed for the following six practices to implement whole-class
discussions that are conducive to learning:
1) What is the function of whole-class discussion to foster historical reasoning?
(pp. 3-12)
A) Perceiving – confrontation
B) Inquiring – analyzing
C) Interpreting – sense-making
2) How to select documents befitting the learning goals of the discussion ? (p. 13)
3) Which collaborative methods are suitable for preparing the discussion? (pp. 14-15)
4) How can students’ historical reasoning be fostered? (pp. 16-17)
SUMMARY 1: THE THREE FUNCTIONS OF WHOLE-CLASS DISCUSSION
5) Supporting students: Explicit teaching of historical reasoning concepts (pp. 18-19)
6) For teachers: foster dialogic whole-class discussion – 6 generic suggestions (p. 20)
SUMMARY 2: HOW CAN WHOLE-CLASS DISCUSSION ENHANCE LEARNING?
Preliminary note
The output of whole-class discussions will not be coherent, ready-to-print historical
narratives, but a collection of differentiated fragments or narrative strands in connection
with a central historical question. Accordingly, the findings from the class discussion in
relation to the central question must then be transferred into a coherent narrative or
secured by means of individual "take home messages" or written products. The focus of this
planning tool is on the preparation and implementation of whole-class discussions in history
lessons.
1
Zimmermann, M. (2022). Dialogische Klassengesprächsführung im Geschichtsunterricht. Entwicklung einer fachlichen und
transversalen Kompetenz von Lehrpersonen im Rahmen der Interventionsstudie Socrates 2.0. Frankfurt/M.: Wochenschau.
(E: Conducting dialogic whole-class discussions in history education. Teachers’ trajectories of a subject-specific and generic
competence during the intervention study Socrates 2.0).
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
3
1) What is the function of whole-class discussion to foster
historical reasoning?
Competence-oriented history teaching to foster historical thinking and reasoning in the sense
of Swiss Curriculum 21 requires learning opportunities that enable the students…
• to perceive historical phenomena, controversies, changes, or developments,
• to inquiry and extract significant information based on a body of documents by means
of subject-specific analysis of documents from and about the past,
• to make sense of the extracted pieces of information by forming plausible narratives
based on subject-specific patterns of interpretation, such as causal connections or
change and continuity, and to form meaning by considering perspectivity for
orientation in time and space.
2
The three learning opportunities listed above can be fulfilled through classroom discourse. For
this purpose, whole-class discussion can serve as a common forum for building and linking the
three core practices (perceive, inquire, sense-making) of historical reasoning.
3
Each core practice of historical reasoning can be promoted through class discussion. This
requires that the purpose for which the whole-class discussion is to be used needs to be
considered when planning history lessons. The following figure shows a full learning cycle of
historical reasoning referring to the three core practices.
2
Bürgler, B., Gautschi, P. & Hediger, S. (2016). Kompetenzorientiert arbeiten im Geschichtsunterricht. In M. Naas (Hrsg.),
Kompetenzorientierter Unterricht auf der Sekundarstufe 1 (pp. 258-279). Bern: hep.
3
van Drie, J. & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about the
past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87-110.
van Boxtel, C. & van Drie, J. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In S. A. Metzger
& L. McArthur Harris (Hrsg.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149-176). New York:
Wiley.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
4
Ideal learning cycle of historical reasoning
The illustrated learning cycle is triggered by a confrontation with or perception of an initially
"alien world", the past. The resulting questions, assumptions or expressed irritations serve
as a basis for the subsequent inquiry on jointly established historical problem-space.
4
For
this, the learners need to apply different strategies of historical analysis in dealing with
different documents (different types of texts, pictures, films, etc.). These mainly reading
strategies can be found in all current teaching materials.
5
Through historical inquiry all information in reference to a leading question is extracted from
the selected documents. What is considered a relevant or irrelevant piece of information
should already be discussed and trustworthiness of evidence evaluated. This constitutes the
ground for the third practice: making sense of extracted information. However, this is not
done arbitrarily, but on the basis of interpretative patterns of historical narratives such as
explaining historical phenomena through forming of causal connections (causes-
consequences), the description of developments as change and continuity (incl. turning
points) and the evaluation of different perspectives (past – present; historian – me).
6
By
means of these narrative patterns of historical reasoning, learners can make sense of
4
Reisman, A., Schneider Kavanagh, S., Monte-Sano, C., Fogo, B., McGrew, S. C., Cipparone, P. et al. (2018). Facilitating whole-
class discussions in history: A framework for preparing teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 278-293.
5
Based on Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of
documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87.
More detail: Poitras, E. G. & Lajoie, S. P. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated learning: the cognitive and
metacognitive activities involved in learning through historical inquiry. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 213-
234.
6
Seixas, P. & Morton, T. (2013). The big six. Historical thinking concepts. Toronto: Nelson Education.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
5
historical phenomena individually and thus learn to orient themselves in time and space.
Nevertheless, their reasonings must be justified based on evidence and possibly new
questions arise that lead to a further cycle of historical reasoning.
Subsequently, these three core practices A) Perceiving – confrontation; B) Inquiring –
analyzing; and C) Interpreting – sense-making are each introduced as separate
opportunities for whole-class discussion, their goals in reference to historical reasoning are
described and substantiated with suggestions for opening discussions accordingly. In
addition, for each type of discussions sets of trigger questions are offered that function as
scaffolds for central historical questions, especially section C), as well as impulses for
teachers to lead whole-class discussions
The following sections are influenced by:
Chapman, A. (2016). Developing students’ understanding of historical interpretations.
Oxford: Pearson.
Havekes, H., van Boxtel, C., Coppen, P.-A., & Luttenberg, J. (2017). Stimulating historical
thinking in a classroom discussion: The role of the teacher. Historical Encounters
Journal, 4(2), 71-93.
Mandell, N. (2008). Thinking like a historian: A framework for teaching and learning. OAH
Magazine of History, 22(2), 55-63.
Reisman, A., Schneider Kavanagh, S., Monte-Sano, C., Fogo, B., McGrew, S. C., Cipparone,
P. et al. (2018). Facilitating whole-class discussions in history: A framework for
preparing teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 278-293.
Seixas, P. & Morton, T. (2013). The Big Six. Historical thinking concepts. Toronto: Nelson
Education.
van Boxtel, C. & van Drie, J. (2013). Historical reasoning in the classroom: What does it
look like and how can we enhance it? Teaching History, 150, 44-52.
van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2017). Engaging students in historical reasoning: The need
for dialogic history education. In M. Carretero, S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave
handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 573-589). Springer.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
6
A) Perceiving – confrontation
1) Confronting: The aim here is to arouse the learners' interest and to work out, e.g., a
controversy, together. The students should already express their first (pre-
)judgements in the conversation. Collecting first impressions and assumptions can lead
to a shared problem space that can then be investigated.
2) Opening through contextualisation and perception of change or otherness of past
and present using comparisons
With the help of comparisons of biographies, maps, pictures, etc., the learners should
be introduced to the past as a living environment or confronted with historical
developments. The aim is that the students describe these, share their impressions,
and try to classify the learning objects in time and space based on their actual
knowledge. Afterwards, a common guiding question can be formulated or presented
by the teacher.
Discursive actions of students
Asking questions, making assumptions, come up
with initial classifications, express prejudices, bring
in (previous) sources of knowledge, describe
conspicuous features, draw first comparisons etc.
TRIGGER QUESTIONS
• Put a title under/over the picture/graphic/text and think about which one suits
you best and why.
• Does something irritate you?
• What kind of emotions does it create?
• What does it trigger for you?
• How would you judge it?
TRIGGER QUESTIONS
• Look at the two maps/pictures etc., what do you notice?
• When would you say that was (temporal context)? (...) What do you know about
this point in time/era?
• Where does the person come from? What clues indicate this? What role could
he/she have played in and in which past events?
• Have you seen something like this before? In what context? Where?
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
7
B) Inquiring – analysing
The aim is to gather information related to the central historical question or problem. This is
the most common form of whole-class discussion. It usually follows an individual, partner or
group work phase, which involves dealing with one (or more) document(s). The students
should learn that history is created from the remains OF the past (sources). These are
assembled and formed into historical narratives using guiding questions from the present. In
addition to sources, there are historical accounts, which provide an interpretative view ON
the past. They are also part of inquiry into the past. In addition, these documents provide
information on central concepts, facts, names, events, etc. For both (sources & accounts) it is
crucial to understand that they are always bound to an author and were created in a certain
temporal and spatial context (perspectivity).
Discursive actions of students
Basic: describing and reporting relevant information
from individual documents in relation to a
guiding question/task, contextualizing in
narrow spatial and temporal pattern, present
basic information about the source (sourcing)
Advanced: sorting information, defining concepts,
describing differences or similarities
(corroboration), contextualizing in broader
spatial and temporal pattern, evaluating
trustworthiness and usefulness.
TRIGGER QUESTIONS
Sources (all media)
• What does the source say about historical actors/events (perspectives)?
• How does the author justify his/her statements (evidence)?
Source corroboration:
• What new perspectives are there? How is the historical phenomenon presented in comparison
with other sources? What is left out and why? Context of the authors?
• Which statements are the same for all sources?
Accounts (all media)
• What exactly does it say about the past/history?
• How is history dealt with? What image of history is conveyed?
• Which events, historical actors, technical terms, buzzwords are used? How are they described?
• Which guiding questions does the author pursue? What is the context of the person?
Corroboration:
• What is (not) in other accounts? Why? (perspective / controversy)?
• What information does the text provide about the temporal (when) & spatial (where) context
of the events described and/or of historical actors?
• What is depicted differently between past and present?
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
8
C) Interpreting – sense-making
The aim is to link the information extracted from documents to possible answers to a central
question or problem. The learners should put the information they have gathered into
temporal and spatial context. Historical reasoning and sense-making is fostered by the
interpretation of the information. To make sense of the (past) world, the students should
articulate their own, evidence-based arguments or interpretations from their inquiry of the
documents. Plausible historical reasoning is created by negotiating well-founded arguments
in a social context (= class). To arrive at an in-depth argumentation, subject-specific impulses
are needed that stimulate the learners to think further, to inquire further or to argue.
The following choice of trigger questions is subdivided according to narrative patterns of
historical reasoning: Causes - consequences, change - continuity, turning points, and
perspectivity. In their classification, they follow basic interpretative patterns of historical
narratives, which can also be found in the Swiss Curriculum 21.
7
The following example
illustrates this:
Example from Curriculum 21, 3rd cycle (ages 12-15)
Section 5.1 “Space, time and societies”: National history (basic requirement)
The pupils...
c) ... can describe the causes, development, and consequences of an important event in
Swiss history in the 20th century.
Orange: Narrative patterns of historical reasoning, i.e., which specify what kind of information is
sought and how this "loose information" can be meaningfully connected to history or how history can
be judged (also called 2nd-order concepts or thinking concepts or meta-concepts).
8
7
Seixas, P. & Morton, T. (2013); Mandell, N. (2008).
8
Among others: Lee, P. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Hrsg.),
How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 32-78). Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press.
Discursive actions of students
Making sense: Explaining connections, contrasting
developments as change or continuity,
forming argumentative judgements, pointing
out open needs for clarification - exploring.
Perspectivity as "deep analysis of temporal layers":
Recognising, comparing, and evaluating the…
a) plurality of views from/on the present
b) controversy of views from historians
c) multiperspectivity of historical sources
Orientation in one's own present: expressing oneself
about identity; assessing the present from the
past.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
9
Causes and consequences
Goal: Help students to understand that there are always several causes for historical events
with varying degrees of significance for the resulting consequences or subsequent events.
These consequences can be events, actions or changed life patterns that occurred years or
decades before or after the topic under study. Explaining causes and consequences also
include considering cultural values or attitudes that existed at the time. Likewise, political, or
economic systems that limit people's freedom of choice can be cause and/or consequence in
the long term.
Luís, R. & Rapanta, C. (2020). Towards (re-)defining historical reasoning competence: A review of theoretical and empirical
research. Educational Research Review, 31, 100336.
TRIGGER QUESTIONS
Describing
• What were the causes of past events?
• From which dimensions do the causes come from? (economy - politics - society -
culture - environment - technology).
• What type of cause is it? (immediate or indirect trigger of events?)
Describing
• What were the consequences of these events?
Connecting – interpreting
• What do you consider the main cause for a historical event/ peoples’ actions? Why?
• How would you connect these causes with a historical event?
• Which impacts were intended by certain actors?
• Which effects were unintended?
• How did these events affect people's lives, society, and the world?
• Were the consequences long-lasting or rather short-lived?
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
10
Change and continuity, turning points
Goal: Help students to understand that events in history never repeat themselves. Through
time there is change, but also continuity. There are aspects of human experience that are
constant over a long period of time. Furthermore, there are moments in history when new
structures, values or new paths suddenly opened in social, political, or economic
developments. A previously constant process of change is altered in its speed and/or direction
(turning point).
TRIGGER QUESTIONS
Describing
•
What has changed?
•
What has remained the same?
•
Who or what has made this change possible?
•
Who supported the change?
•
Who was against the change?
Interpreting
•
Who has benefited from the change? Who did not? And why?
•
How have past decisions or actions affected future decisions? (Short-term or long-
term change)
•
Was there no other way to handle a past event?
•
Is there a “point of no return”?
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
11
Perspectives and empathy: past
Goals: Students should try to understand the worldview of historical actors and how this
influenced their decisions and actions. Judgments of the past from the normative perspective
of present attitudes and events should be avoided. Adopting the perspectives of historical
actors does not mean identifying with them emotionally (empathy sympathy). Even though
looking through the lens of specifically chosen individuals enhances students’ interest, there
is the need to establish a critical distance towards historical persons. Students should be
challenged to not only argue with evidence that substantiates there already made conviction
but critically evaluate pros and cons of all perspectives provided.
TRIGGER QUESTIONS
Describing
• How did people in the past perceive/see their world?
• What values, skills and forms of knowledge did people need to be successful ("need
to succeed?" Life-world context of the historical actors)?
• Which different perspectives from the past have been passed on about this event?
• Whose perspective has been neglected/not been passed on?
Interpreting - evaluating
• Who is more trustworthy and why?
• How has their worldview influenced their decisions and actions?
• To what extent does this worldview justify an action? Why not?
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
12
Perspectives: historians and the informed view on individual present
Goal: The students should understand that even historians only use parts of the past. It is
necessary to distinguish how insights from past events are comparable with today and which
are not. Not all seemingly similarities are "useful" for comparison purposes. How does the
past help us make sense of the present? Furthermore, historians also judge certain actions of
historical actors and historical events differently. Students should understand that such
controversies are part of history as a discipline and should be negotiated together. In addition,
students are part of societies with history that shapes identity.
Complicating matters is the fact that history is always constructed and, therefore, prone to be
twisted or narrated to serve specific purposes of different interest groups (e.g., political
parties, twitter feeds, economic interest groups). Dealing with personal identity and social
backgrounds is also part of historical reasoning. Using their historical reasoning competences,
students should be enabled to cast a critical view on the (mis-)use of historical narratives
surrounding them. They should be able differentiate between positions and encouraged to
reflect on their personal positioning and identity through negotiation of meaning in class.
TRIGGER QUESTIONS
Comparing past and present
• How can contexts be compared? (economy - politics - society - culture - technology)
• How is the past/history similar to the present?
• How is the past/history different from the present?
• What can we take away from the past/history?
• To what extent does a phenomenon that arose in the past live on in the present? Does it still
exist today?
• Who is portrayed as the hero, who as the villain? (historical accounts)
• How are the actions of historical actors/the historical event judged from today's perspective?
(historical accounts)
Positioning in plurality of present (identity)
• Which (heroic) deeds, contributions, sacrifices, or tragedies deserve to be remembered? And
why?
• Can the historical event be compared with similar current events?
• How does their view differ from the others? Why?
• Is a similar development conceivable in our country (now)? Can something like this happen
again? To what extent is this still happening today?
• Under what circumstances?
• How could it be prevented?
• Can/should I do something about it?
• Who can/should/must do something about it?
• What is the political position of certain groups? Where does it come from and how should it
be evaluated?
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
13
2) How to select documents befitting the learning goals of the discussion?
The choice of documents plays a central role in the students' engagement with history. They
are the key to the past and contain information that must first be extracted by applying
subject-specific strategies of analysis. Without a central historical question combined with a
specific task, however, the students cannot be expected to recognise which pieces of
information is significant. For the learners to be able to inquire in-depth questions at all, it is
necessary that the teacher makes corresponding preliminary considerations when choosing
the documents. Here is a selection of possible considerations when choosing documents.
9
These features should not all be covered by one document at the same time but serve as
guiding ideas for preparation depending on the level of engagement with a topic. By analysing
different documents (two or more), learners are also encouraged to look at differences and
similarities. When choosing documents, materials with different perspectives, controversial
judgements or biographical content should be given preference over textbook texts.
10
Furthermore, overarching socio-cultural topics (i.e., inequality, racism, war, and peace) that
seem still relevant today enhance student engagement with the past.
11
The different documents can be linked with the corresponding trigger questions, arranged
along the three core practices to foster historical reasoning competence and to deepen
historical understanding.
9
Havekes, H., van Boxtel, C., Coppen, P.-A. & Luttenberg, J. (2017). Stimulating historical thinking in a classroom discussion: The role of the
teacher. Historical Encounters Journal, 4(2), 71-93.
10
Logtenberg, A., van Boxtel, C. & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Stimulating situational interest and student questioning through three types
of historical introductory texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(2), 179-198.
11
Popa, N. (2022). Operationalizing Historical Consciousness: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature on Meaning Making in His torical
Learning. Review of Educational Research, 92(2), 171-208.
Documents should…
In general
Depending on central question
... provoke a confrontation with learners'
ideas or challenge and irritate learners'
preconceptions; trigger emotional
involvement.
... showing people in their everyday
lives and making them "come alive"
(biographies).
... encourage and invite learners to ask their
own questions, formulate hypotheses.
... offer different perspectives
(temporal and situational).
... offer content from multiple perspectives.
... offer multiple causes or conditions
for past phenomena.
... offer multiple plausible ways for
answering.
... include different consequences of
actions and events.
... give opportunity for learners to construct
their own argumentations.
... encompass different descriptions of
change and continuity of historical
phenomenon.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
14
3) Which collaborative formats are suitable for preparing a discussion?
For the learners to be able to prepare themselves for the exchange in a whole-class discussion
and to be able to contribute substantially, it is necessary to implement preceding activities
both individually as well as in partner and group work. These activities should always prepare
learners for the topic of the discussion and lead them directly to the core content that is being
discussed.
12
What follows, is a selection of collaborative formats teachers used our video study:
a) Think-Pair-Share
- Subsequent sequences of individual work – partner exchange – whole-class
discussion: Think-pair-share is a teaching format that encourages and allows for
individual thinking, collaboration, and presentation in the same activity. Students
must first work on a task on their own (think), then they come together in pairs
(pair), then share their discussion and decision with the class. Discussing their
findings or answers first with a partner before sharing in class maximizes
participation by giving reassurance through exchanging ideas, interpretations etc.,
and helps to focus attention on the given task.
- Sharing: For "sharing", the roles can also be distributed in such a way that the
learners present the thoughts of their partner by means of flash method. By not
having to expose one’s own ideas, more students might feel encouraged to talk
more.
- Visualisation during share sequence: Note key words on the board/ digital device
and use them to open discussion (e.g.: “Can we group your findings?”).
b) Think-Pair-Present:
- Structured in sequences like think-pair-share with modified sharing in the form of a
written product that is presented, e.g., a title proposed for a picture, a 1-sentence
summary or a main conclusion.
This teaching format can be used especially for the core practices perception and inquiry:
- Prerequisite to support students’ perception: The learners have seen a document (e.g.,
picture or film trailer or statement) to illustrate a historical topic and should now set
e.g., a suitable title. This is briefly presented and explained in plenary.
- Prerequisite to support students’ inquiry: The learners have analysed one document
and summarise the main finding of their pairing which is presented. The summary is
briefly explained. This results in a collection information that shows what the individual
partner groups have focused on in terms of content. To induce this, a document must
be designed in such a way that several main points are possible. Maybe the pairs read
different documents.
Follow-up reasoning: Based on collected information from pairs start linking them to
respond to a central question.
12
C.f.: Basic element of collaborativ learning based on Johnson & Johnson (2009). An educational psychology success story:
social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Research, 38, 365–379.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
15
- Visualisation: Folded pieces of paper for key words, titles or use oversized post-its
→ make sure you can move the information for linking purposes
c) Structured debate to argue perspectives
- The class is divided into two or more opposing positions and provided with
documents supporting their position/ perspective on a historical event. In individual
work, the documents are first analysed, then the argumentation within the position
is prepared and down together. The aim is to develop a sense of perspective when
dealing with the same historical event.
Option: prepare role cards with controversial perspectives or ask students to
compile an argumentation of their given perspective.
- Please note: It is not primarily a matter of winning the debate, but of dealing with
an historical phenomenon in an argumentative way. It is essential to have a
debriefing discussion to resolve positions. This could already be initiated during the
discussion.
- Visualisation: Table with opposing argument or a placemat on the board/ digital
device etc.
d) Group discussion with placemat
- The class is divided into groups. According to the size of the group (3 – 5 students), the
groups get a placemat (templates on the internet) with as many sections on the
placemat as students in the group and a square/ circle in the centre. In individual work
(think), the learners are asked to answer a central question based on documents. Each
Students has one section on the placemat in which they can record their own
statements. After every student noted their statements in the individual section, the
group discussions are initiated. Each group then synthesizes their statements into a
collective group statement. These teaching strategy asks learners to negotiate meaning
and statements to come up with a shared reasoning.
- For teachers: Placemats allow insights in both individual and collective ways of
historical thinking. During group work teachers can monitor all the positions in class
and, thereby, prepare an upcoming whole-class discussion.
- Visualisation: Use the placemat also to highlight different positions. Also include the
central square/circle with the central question.
e) Ranking of causes OR significance
- Prerequisite: The learners have dealt with either a) different causes for a historical
event; b) different consequences of a historical event or c) different perspectives of
people from that time. Now they can rank them according to either a) the influence of
the causes, b) the significance of the consequences, c) the connections between causes
and consequences or d) the credibility of persons.
- Visualisation: Ranking is not enough, as it does not allow for much. Choose a diagram
that also allows connections, e.g., a fishbone, or networks or pyramid or diamond
13
).
13
Chapman, A. (2003). Camels, diamonds and counterfactuals: A model for teaching causal reasoning. Teaching History, 112, 46-53.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
16
4) How can students‘ historical reasoning be fostered?
SUMMARY 1: THE THREE FUNCTIONS OF WHOLE-CLASS DISCUSSIONS
Function 1: „Directing“ perception through confrontation
What?
Provoke prejudices / irritate stereotypes / invoke contoversies
How?
Pre-discussion
Confront pupils with a document, collect impressions.
Let students formulate their own questions as an introduction and develop a
common guiding question or introduce the lesson’s central historical question.
Discussion
Record/visualise ideas, statements etc. of students and try a categorization or
group them together → No evaluation of ideas but opening the topic
Post-discussion
Give an outlook on how the different aspects from discussion will be processed in
the upcoming lesson or series of lessons → focusing the opening discussion
Function 2: Analysis through collective inquiry
What?
Collecting and comparing information from documents
How?
Pre-discussion
Build content specific language from documents; Establish hist. context with a
timeline; making historical actors “tangible” as human beings; analysis of multiple
documents or different documents for students
Discussion
Focus on knowledge aspects of historical events and understanding of
documents’ content (global & details); foster application of analysis strategies
and localisation in the historical context. Establish students’ referencing their
statements to documents;
Clarify and/or jointly define concepts; draw a timeline; keep an overview of
perspectives; build an "argument house" (cf. pp. 18-19).
Post-discussion
Compare content with e.g., historians’ accounts; clarify trustworthiness of
authors (and why?); clarify perspectives of historical actors; expand the historical
context with more sources.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
17
Function 3: Making sense and reflection through reasoning
What?
Make plausible interpretations, give reasons; recognise differences, similarities,
or connections through comparison; evaluate and reflect perspectives
How?
Pre-discussion: analysis of multiple documents, for example:
Confrontation with controversial accounts (comparison: what are the different
points of view?)
List possible cause-consequence relationships, note down
What has changed over time or what is still the same? Typical then = typical now?
What is the significance of this event/actor?
Discussion
Answering the central historical question or problem
• What approaches are there and how plausible are they?
• What information is missing?
Negotiating evidence-based judgements, findings, conclusions, synthesis
comprehensible disclosure of students’ individual perspectives and positioning
Post-discussion
reading: go through documents again and highlight missed arguments that
further substantiate discussed positions
listening: listen to audiotaped discussion again and evaluate argumentations OR
listen to discussion of others and compare their arguments with own
arguments, then expand own argumentation
writing: short essay reflecting on own position after discussion and substantiate
with evidence from discussion OR: evaluate personal position written
down BEFORE discussion based on topics discussed
speaking: record individual explanations or argumentations after discussion on
audio- or video tape. Use flash cards to support coherence and use of
subject-specific language
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
18
5) Supporting students: Explicit teaching of historical reasoning concepts
The students should also be introduced to the principal concepts of the subject and oriented
towards reasoning by using narrative patterns. To this end, they should explicitly make use
with the “historical argument house” on the following page.” As current studies underline, the
explicit teaching of principle concepts of history leads to more in-depth subject-related
learning.
14
In order to work with the “historical argument house”, there is no strict order or
rules.
15
14
Stoel, G. L., van Drie, J. & van Boxtel, C. (2015). Teaching towards historical expertise. Developing a pedagogy for forstering causal
reasoning in history. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(1), 49-76.
Stoel, G. L., van Drie, J. P. & van Boxtel, C. A. M. (2017). The effects of explicit teaching of strategies, second-order concepts, and
epistemological underpinnings on students' ability to reason causally in history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 321-
337.
van Boxtel, C. & van Drie, J. (2013).
15
Argument house adapted from Reznitskaya, A. & Wilkinson, I. A. (2017). The most reasonable answer. Helping students build better
arguments together. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Questions for students: Mandell, N. (2008).
How can the explicit teaching of narrative patterns and concepts be implemented?
A request (based on Stoel et al., 2017):
1) Teacher models use of „historical argument house“ with a topic (p. 19)
→ explicitly point out where you are within the building and what the next step
will be.
2) Teacher applies and highlights trigger questions from the sense-making practice
(pp. 8 – 12).
3) The house’s floors offer guidance for the students and indicate what has to be
grappled with when trying to answer a central historical question.
4) The students need a subject-specific vocabulary to reasonably link the
information they have gathered. The narrative patterns of interpretation to
creating meaning can be found in the respective trigger questions. They provide
the structure for the narratives to be created by the learners (e.g., causal
connections; developments as change or continuity; in-depth analysis of
perspectives, contrasting “then – now”).
5) The individual sections of the house can also be used to record the students' own
thought processes before and after a whole-class discussion.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
19
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
20
6) For teachers: foster dialogic whole-class discussion – 6 generic
suggestions
16
A) Share goal(-s) of discussion: Goal is addressed together; students are asked to think along
and are actively involved in shaping the content of the discussion by sharing ideas and
considering different viewpoints.
➔ All participants listen to each other seriously.
B) Orient students to each other: Students respond to other students' statements, not only
to teacher questions. Before the teacher says something about a statement that still
needs to be developed, she/he invites other students to add to it, explain or clarify it, link
personal statement to it, take a counter-position, etc. All participants try to build on each
other’s ideas / statements either by adding, expanding, or challenging or rejecting them.
C) Students’ role: Students are not just "filling the gap" of teacher closed questions. It is also
not imperative that every student says something. That does NOT mean they are NOT
participating. The aim is to conduct a joint "educational discussion" to foster subject-
specific practices (as outlined for history above).
D) Wait time: Thinking needs time as well as formulating a comprehensible statement.
Teachers should at least wait for 5-6 seconds before calling on a student or rephrasing
their initial question.
E) Ask for productive statements: Students should support their utterances with evidence,
clarify use of language and/or justify their statements.
F) Visualising = keeping coherence: The teacher visualises the students' statements during
whole-class discussion. This helps all participants to keep up with the topic currently
discussed as well as giving an overview of content addressed so far. Further useful to
relate or reject content that is presently discussed with overarching goal of discussion.
16
More detailed in Pauli, C. & Reusser, K. (Hrsg., in progress). Dialogische Klassengespräche leiten. Praxishandbuch zur
Planung, Durchführung und Leitung lernförderlicher Klassengespräche im Unterricht.
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York: Dialogos.
Orchestrating whole-class discussions for historical reasoning University of Fribourg (CH)
21
SUMMARY 2: HOW CAN WHOLE-CLASS DISCUSSION ENHANCE LEARNING?
➢ Lessons should be structured along a central historical question by using narrative
patterns (use as scaffold: trigger questions sense-making), add corresponding
multiple documents and prepare analysing tasks. Coherence of content leads to a
more structured approach for students and facilitates teachers’ goal orientation.
➢ A central historical question should open a problem space that allows multiple
possibilities for reasoned answers. Teachers should also consider that openness for
sound explanations and reasonings constitute an important aspect of historical
reasoning.
➢ Pre-discussion tasks ideally make students grapple with at least two documents that
are contradictory or extend each other. Thereby, students should be «forced» to
compare information which leads to more in-depth discussion.
➢ Key concepts (e.g., Racism, peace) should be defined together before entering
discussion, for example by using cases or comparing definitions.
➢ Implement collaborative teaching formats to prepare whole-class discussion. In a
partner or small group setting, students can pre-discuss a central historical question
or compare information from documents etc. on their own terms and in less exposed
talk format.
➢ The goal of whole-class discussion in history is to foster the three core practices of
historical reasoning together and cast an informed view on the present based on
deep inquiry. Oral historical reasoning appears rather in narrative fragments than
in coherent narratives (as in writing).
➢ Who talks the most? The individual teacher or the collection of students? Who speaks
more, thinks more?
It is worth bearing in mind that listeners also benefit when fellow students talk more
than the teachers. Silent but listening students profit from a dialogic discourse
culture.