Crossing Boundaries on the Battlefield The Possibilities of Teacher Study Tours for Substantial Professional Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
History education in schools is being revolutionized. In Canada and around the world ministries of education, teachers, museum curators, public historians and scholars of history education are embracing new approaches to teaching and learning which include acquiring historical information but move beyond that to focus on developing historical thinking. A key area of capacity building to ensure the success of these reforms is the preparation of teachers to use these new approaches well. There is considerable evidence that both the initial preparation of history teachers and the professional development available to in-service teachers are not consistent with the disciplinary approaches advocated for history education in schools. This article describes recent trends in history education and argues that study tours combining attention to new developments in historiography with consideration of their implications for pedagogy have great potential to provide the kind of professional education necessary to support teaching that fosters growth in historical thinking. H istory education in schools is being revolutionized. In Canada and around the world ministries of education, teachers, museum curators, public historians and scholars of history education are embracing a new approach to teaching and learning which includes knowing historical information but moves beyond that to focus on developing historical thinking. There are a number of specific frameworks for historical thinking but common to them all is an emphasis on developing student competencies with the key disciplinary processes of historical work - students are expected not only to know what historians know, but also how historians know. 1
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.007 |
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".