Struggling with historical significance: Reasoning, reading, and writing processes

IF 0.8 Q3 LINGUISTICS
Johan van Driel, J. van Drie, Carla A. M. van Boxtel
{"title":"Struggling with historical significance: Reasoning, reading, and writing processes","authors":"Johan van Driel, J. van Drie, Carla A. M. van Boxtel","doi":"10.1515/eujal-2021-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The concept of historical significance is seen as a key concept of historical reasoning. Assigning significance is based on criteria and related to the identity of who assigns significance. However, little is known about reasoning-, reading-, and writing processes when students attribute significance. The aim of this study is to investigate how students and experienced history teachers with a master’s degree reason, read, and write about historical significance while thinking aloud. We analyzed the think-aloud protocols of twelve 10th-grade students and four history teachers on reasoning, reading, and writing processes. While thinking aloud, participants read two contrasting accounts after which they wrote an argumentative text about the historical significance of Christopher Columbus. Analysis of participants’ think-aloud protocols and their written texts showed that students did not recognize historical accounts as perspectives—influenced by the historical context. In contrast, teachers looked for the authors’ judgement, evidence, and context. In addition, students’ limited use of metaknowledge regarding texts and the concept of historical significance hampered them. These out-comes provide direction for teaching reasoning, reading, and writing with respect to historical significance.","PeriodicalId":43181,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"10 1","pages":"185 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2021-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract The concept of historical significance is seen as a key concept of historical reasoning. Assigning significance is based on criteria and related to the identity of who assigns significance. However, little is known about reasoning-, reading-, and writing processes when students attribute significance. The aim of this study is to investigate how students and experienced history teachers with a master’s degree reason, read, and write about historical significance while thinking aloud. We analyzed the think-aloud protocols of twelve 10th-grade students and four history teachers on reasoning, reading, and writing processes. While thinking aloud, participants read two contrasting accounts after which they wrote an argumentative text about the historical significance of Christopher Columbus. Analysis of participants’ think-aloud protocols and their written texts showed that students did not recognize historical accounts as perspectives—influenced by the historical context. In contrast, teachers looked for the authors’ judgement, evidence, and context. In addition, students’ limited use of metaknowledge regarding texts and the concept of historical significance hampered them. These out-comes provide direction for teaching reasoning, reading, and writing with respect to historical significance.
与历史意义斗争:推理、阅读和写作过程
摘要历史意义的概念被视为历史推理的一个关键概念。分配显著性是基于标准的,并且与分配显著性的人的身份有关。然而,当学生归因于意义时,人们对推理、阅读和写作过程知之甚少。本研究的目的是调查拥有硕士学位的学生和经验丰富的历史教师如何在大声思考的同时推理、阅读和写作历史意义。我们分析了十二名十年级学生和四名历史教师在推理、阅读和写作过程中的大声思考协议。在大声思考的同时,参与者阅读了两篇对比鲜明的叙述,之后他们写了一篇关于克里斯托弗·哥伦布历史意义的议论文。对参与者的大声思考协议和书面文本的分析表明,学生不认为历史叙述是受历史背景影响的视角。相比之下,教师们寻找提交人的判断、证据和背景。此外,学生对文本元知识的有限使用和历史意义的概念阻碍了他们。这些成果为推理、阅读和写作教学提供了具有历史意义的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信