History Education and Historical Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inquiry plays a vital role in history as a discipline which constructs knowledge about the past and it is a vital organizing principle in history education in many countries around the world. Inquiry is also much debated, however, and although it has prominent contemporary advocates around the world, it also has prominent critics in education studies. This volume in the International Review of History Education explores the role of historical inquiry in history curricula and in history classrooms and addresses a series of linked questions, including the following: What does historical inquiry mean in history classrooms? What forms does classroom based historical inquiry take, and to what extent is it understood in differing ways in different contexts? What do we know about the affordances and constraints associated with inquiry-based learning in history – what is the evidence of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of inquiry based historical learning? We address these questions in the volume by presenting seventeen papers from eight different international contexts exploring historical inquiry that will be of interest both to history teachers, curriculum designers and history education researchers - seven papers from England, three from the US, two from Sweden and one each from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, and Singapore. The volume adds to our knowledge about teachers’ thinking about inquiry and teachers’ inquiry practices. It adds to our knowledge about the impact and value of inquiry in developing children’s’ historical learning. It also explores the challenges that implementing inquiry can present for history teachers and provides support for implementation and examples of successful practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".