在线历史思维:历史网站的专家与非专家阅读分析

IF 3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
James Goulding
{"title":"在线历史思维:历史网站的专家与非专家阅读分析","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

本文概述了一项社会文化研究的结果,该研究考察了数字背景如何塑造历史思维。人们认为,用于处理历史信息的工具可以调节思维,当在线评估历史信息时,参与者会利用与历史思维(Wineburg, 1991)和网站评估相关的启发式方法。方法对历史学家和大学生进行定性访谈,他们采用有声思考和半结构化提问的方式对三个历史网站进行评估。虽然来源、确证和情境化仍然是学科调查的基础,但当用于评估在线材料时,每种启发式的具体性质都发生了变化,并且随着参与者适应一般数字启发式来评估历史信息,形成了一种新的互文“混合”启发式。此外,这些“混合启发式”对参与者有不同的影响:对学生来说,它似乎抑制了批判性的历史思维,而对历史学家来说,它形成了他们深刻批判性评价的基础。研究结果对历史思维、历史教育和批判性网站评价的研究具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Historical thinking online: An analysis of expert and non-expert readings of historical websites
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
17
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.
×
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