Proposing a model for conducting student inquiry in the history classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the benefits and limitations of conducting historical inquiry in K-12 classrooms and proposes a model for scaffolding the historical inquiry process. Analysis of existing theoretical and empirical research on inquiry learning in history education and science education was undertaken to identify the essential features of inquiry-based learning. Further, semi-structured interviews with experienced history teachers and history educators were conducted to better understand the benefits and challenges of conducting historical inquiries. The analysis of the literature and the interviews identified many benefits for conducting historical inquiry such as increased student interest in history, improved historical knowledge and historical thinking, and the development of literacy, communication, and research skills. Likewise, significant challenges exist that restrict the use and efficacy of inquiry in history classrooms including lack of teacher understanding of the process and methods of historical inquiry, difficulties developing authentic historical questions, and challenges finding appropriate and relevant evidence. By offering a scaffolded model of historical inquiry with multiple entry points this article hopes to support teachers in designing and implementing engaging and effective historical inquiries in their classrooms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".