{"title":"Historical thinking online: An analysis of expert and non-expert readings of historical websites","authors":"James Goulding","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2020.1834396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background This paper outlines the findings of a sociocultural study that examined how digital contexts shape historical thinking. It was assumed that the tools used to engage with historical information mediate thinking, and that when evaluating historical information online, participants would draw upon heuristics associated with Historical Thinking (Wineburg, 1991) and website evaluation. Method The study involved qualitative interviews with historians and university students who evaluated three historical websites using a think-aloud protocol followed by semi-structured questioning. Findings While sourcing, corroboration and contextualization remain the basis of disciplinary inquiry, the specific nature of each heuristic shifted when being used to evaluate online material, and a new category of intertextual ‘hybrid’ heuristics was formed as participants adapted general digital heuristics to evaluate historical information. Furthermore, these ‘hybrid heuristics’ had divergent effects on participants: for the students it appeared to inhibit critical historical thinking, whereas for the historians it formed the basis of their deep critical appraisal. Contribution The findings have implications for research on historical thinking, history education and critical website evaluation.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"7 1","pages":"204 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1834396","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background This paper outlines the findings of a sociocultural study that examined how digital contexts shape historical thinking. It was assumed that the tools used to engage with historical information mediate thinking, and that when evaluating historical information online, participants would draw upon heuristics associated with Historical Thinking (Wineburg, 1991) and website evaluation. Method The study involved qualitative interviews with historians and university students who evaluated three historical websites using a think-aloud protocol followed by semi-structured questioning. Findings While sourcing, corroboration and contextualization remain the basis of disciplinary inquiry, the specific nature of each heuristic shifted when being used to evaluate online material, and a new category of intertextual ‘hybrid’ heuristics was formed as participants adapted general digital heuristics to evaluate historical information. Furthermore, these ‘hybrid heuristics’ had divergent effects on participants: for the students it appeared to inhibit critical historical thinking, whereas for the historians it formed the basis of their deep critical appraisal. Contribution The findings have implications for research on historical thinking, history education and critical website evaluation.
期刊介绍:
Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) is one of the two official journals of the International Society of the Learning Sciences ( www.isls.org). JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning, and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced. Successful submissions should position their argument within extant literature in the learning sciences. They should reflect the core practices and foci that have defined the learning sciences as a field: privileging design in methodology and pedagogy; emphasizing interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation; grounding research in real-world contexts; answering questions about learning process and mechanism, alongside outcomes; pursuing technological and pedagogical innovation; and maintaining a strong connection between research and practice.