Historical Thinking in the Classroom: A Multiple-Case Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, history and education scholars in the Western world have argued for a constructivist approach to disciplinary thinking in the teaching and learning of History, known as historical thinking. Yet, there has been little classroom-based empirical research exploring how teachers engage with historical thinking theory, enact related practices in the classroom, and, in Canada, utilize historical thinking concepts. The multiple-case study outlined here addresses this gap, by offering descriptive details and insights regarding four Canadian secondary school teachers’ attitudes, understandings, implementation, and applications of historical thinking in lessons and assessments. Differences among these teachers’ perceptions and practices indicate that historical thinking is not a singular pedagogical approach. Yet, common elements revealed two broadly drawn typologies that may serve as inspiration and provide concrete examples for history teachers wishing to develop their own historical thinking practices. Rich descriptions also provide unique insights into how the teachers use their judgment and knowledge in the choices and decisions they make to move theory to practice. Finally, this study offers a methodology for the continued classroom-based study of historical thinking.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it