Frameworks of Knowledge and the “Big Picture”

Wissensrahmen und das “Große Ganze”


Although many history educators agree that one of the purposes of school history should be to help students assemble the historical knowledge they accumulate throughout their K-12 education into coherent “big picture” historical narratives, research has shown that many students struggle to construct coherent narratives. The few who can often produce narratives that are formulaic, simplistic, and naïve.[1] Several history educators have suggested that “frameworks of knowledge” might address the gaps and distortions in students’ historical knowledge and help them turn random historical information into coherent large-scale narratives.[2]

The Weight of Narratives

Narratives are essential for teaching and learning history in K-12 schools. The human mind is “exquisitely tuned” to comprehend and remember stories,[3] and several studies have shown how narratives help students understand and retain what they have learned in history.[4] Narratives are an essential and unavoidable genre by which interpretations of the past are communicated.[5] History is typically taught in K-12 schools in a narrative format, and students typically share what they know about historical events or topics in narrative form.[6] In their daily lives students regularly encounter multiple and competing narratives of events, issues, and developments related to the past, present, and future.[7]

Narratives are crucial for shaping, constructing, and stabilizing identity over time. Philosopher David Carr explains that in an increasingly complex society where people belong to many groups and have multiple, overlapping identities, they relate stories to others to explain who they are and what groups they belong to.[8] Similarly, narratives provide windows into students’ historical consciousness, their sense-making apparatus for understanding changes in human affairs over time to orientate themselves in the present and future.[9] Calder argues that, “without stories that unify past, present, and future, our lives lack intelligibility and we don’t know what to do.”[10] Thus, historical consciousness helps students understand the past in order to “make sense of who they are, where they stand, and what they can do—as individuals, as members of multiple, intersecting groups, and as citizens with roles and responsibilities in relation to nations and states in a complex, conflict-ridden, and rapidly changing world.”[11]

What are Frameworks of Knowledge?

History educators and teachers have offered several terms to describe frameworks of knowledge in history including: “historical frame of reference,” “historical overview knowledge,” “big picture understanding,” “chronological frame of reference,” “historical reference framework,” and “maps of the past”.[12] Despite notable distinctions between different conceptualizations of frameworks of knowledge advanced by scholars, there are several common features among different frameworks of knowledge:

  • They are instruments used by teachers and students as provisional factual scaffolds to accelerate and facilitate learning about the past and the construction of large-scale historical narratives. Frameworks are not pre-established “summaries,” “outlines,” or other objects of learning that are meant to represent the ultimate shape of the historical narrative to be constructed;
  • They help students contextualize, organize, and analyze events, developments, and people over broad temporal and spatial scales. This might include large-scale overviews of human history, intermediate scales at a national or regional level, and numerous in-depth studies nested in the larger overviews;
  • They include knowledge of historical phenomena (events, people, artefacts, developments) over broad temporal and spatial scales;
  • They include knowledge of second-order procedural concepts important for constructing narratives: chronology, turning points, periodization, continuity and change, progress and decline, cause and consequence, historical significance, and historical evidence and interpretations.
  • They are open and flexible to new content and perspectives, adaptable to different historical questions, and are used to generate “little,” “big”, and “bigger” narratives of the past;
  • They can be taught to students in a relatively short period of time (several days or weeks), but are expected to be extended, deconstructed, and reconstructed over time.

One of the critiques of frameworks of knowledge is that they reinforce grand narratives. While it is true that grand narratives are implied in all frameworks of knowledge regardless of how skeletal they are, developing students’ historical narrative frameworks is not the same as introducing a single grand narrative and expecting students to learn it. A framework of knowledge includes historical events, people, and developments on a broad temporal and spatial scale, but students are not told what to think about those events. Instead students are expected to use their framework of knowledge to actively build, extend, challenge, deconstruct, and reconstruct their historical narratives over time.

Assessing the Great Promise

Frameworks of knowledge hold great promise as a theoretical and pedagogical scheme as several small-scale studies have shown that framework-based approaches can enable and accelerate students’ ability to write large-scale narratives; however, these approaches have not yet been exported to schools.[13] Recently, my colleague Dr. Catherine Duquette and I completed the data collection for a design-based research study that investigated the extent to which systematic use of historical thinking pedagogy and resources focused on strengthening students’ frameworks of knowledge improved the ability of (n=36) Grade 5 students and (n=42) grade 10 students in Alberta, and (n=26) Grade 5 and (n=26) grade 10 students in Québec to construct broad, coherent, and plausible Canadian history narratives.

The study design included a pre-test, five 60-75 minutes sessions with four classes over a four-week period, a post-test, and post-test interviews with five students. The pre-test and post-test were the same. In Part A, students were provided with a variety of diagrams that illustrate the development of Canadian history and were asked to choose the diagram that best illustrated the history of Canada. In Part B, students were given the following prompt: “Using what you know from school as well as what you know from elsewhere, describe Canada’s history from the beginning to the present.” In Part C students were asked to create a title that captures the main message or theme of their Canadian history narrative. In each of the five classroom sessions students worked in groups of 2-4 to complete historical thinking activities designed to strengthen their frameworks of knowledge using 30 historical event cards in Canadian history. In the final session, students completed a post-test that was the same as the pre-test.

In future posts on Public History Weekly I look forward to sharing details about the pedagogy employed, and the degree to which frameworks of knowledge improved students’ ability to construct coherent historical narratives in Canadian history.

_____________________

Further Reading

  • Prangsma, Maaike E., Carla A. M. van Boxtel, and Gellof Kanselaar. “Developing a ‘Big Picture’: Effects of Collaborative Construction of Multimodal Representations in History.” Instructional Science 36 2 (2008): 117-136.
  • Shemilt, Denis and Jonathan Howson. “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates.” In Debates in History Teaching, edited by Ian Davies, 66-79. New York: Routledge, 2017.
  • Wilschut, Arie. Images of Time: The Role of an Historical Consciousness of Time in Learning History. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2012.

Web Resources

_____________________

[1] Peter Lee and Jonathan Howson, “‘Two Out of Five Did Not Know that Henry VIII had Six Wives’: History Education, Historical Literacy, and Historical Consciousness,” in National History Standards: The Problem of the Canon and the Future of Teaching History, eds. L. Symcox and Arie Wilschut (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2009), 211-261; Jonathan Howson and Denis Shemilt, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching, ed. Ian Davies (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011), 73-83; Jocelyn Létourneau and Sabrina Moisan, “Young People’s Assimilation of a Collective Historical Memory: A Case Study of Quebeckers of French-Canadian Heritage,” in Theorizing Historical Consciousness, ed. Peter Seixas (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 109-128; Maaike E. Prangsma, Carla A.M. van Boxtel, and Gellof Kanselaar, “Developing a ‘Big Picture’: Effects of Collaborative Construction of Multimodal Representations in History,” Instructional Science 36, no. 2 (2008), 117-136; Denis Shemilt and Jonathan Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Ian Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79; Arie Wilschut, Images of Time: The Role of an Historical Consciousness of Time in Learning History (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2012).
[2] Frances Blow et al., “Only Connect: How Students Form Connections within and between Historical Narratives,” in Joined-Up History: New Directions in History Education Research, eds. Arthur Chapman and Arie Wilschut (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2015), 279-316; Foster et al., Usable Historical Pasts: A Study of Students’ Frameworks of the Past (Swindon, UK: ESRC 2008); Jonathan Howson, “Potential and Pitfalls in Teaching ‘Big Pictures’ of the Past,” Teaching History, no. 136 (2009), 24-33; Peter Lee, “History Education and Historical Literacy,” in Debates in History Teaching, ed. Ian Davies, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2017), 55-65; Rick Rogers, “Frameworks for Big History: Teaching History at its Lower Resolutions,” in MasterClass in History Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning, eds. Christine Counsell, Katharine Burn and Arthur Chapman (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016), 59-76; Shemilt and Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79.
[3] Daniel T. Willingham, Why Don’t Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about how the Mind Works and what it Means for Your Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009), 180.
[4] K. C. Barton and Linda S. Levstik, Teaching History for the Common Good (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004), 288; Kieran Egan, “Layers of Historical Understanding,” Theory and Research in Social Education 17, no. 4 (1989), 280-294; Terry Haydn et al., ed., Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2008); James F. Voss and J. Wiley, “A Case Study of Developing Understanding Via Instruction,” in Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and International Perspectives, eds. P. Stearns, Peter Seixas and Sam Wineburg, 2000), 375-389; Stéphane Lévesque and Paul Zanazanian, “Developing Historical Consciousness and a Community of History Practitioners: A Survey of Prospective History Teachers Across Canada,” McGill Journal of Education 50, no. 2-3 (2015), 389-412.
[5] David Carr, Time, Narrative, and History: Essays in the Philosophy of History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); Philippe Carrard, “History and Narrative: An Overview,” Narrative Works 5, no. 1 (2015), 174-196. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/NW/article/view/23790/27570.; Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).
[6] K. C. Barton, “Research on Students’ Ideas about History,” in Handbook of Research in Social Studies Education, eds. L. S. Levstik and Cynthia A. Tyson (New York: Routledge, 2008), 239-258.
[7] James V. Wertsch, Voices of Collective Remembering (Cambridge, U.K ;New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 202.; David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
[8] Carr, Time, Narrative, and History: Essays in the Philosophy of History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986).
[9] Catherine Duquette, “Relating Historical Consciousness to Historical Thinking through Assessment,” in New Directions in Assessing Historical Thinking, eds. Kadriye Ercikan and Peter Seixas (New York: Routledge, 2015), 51-63; Jörn Rüsen, “Historical Consciousness: Narrative Structure, Moral Function, and Ontogenetic Development,” in Theorizing Historical Consciousness, ed. Peter Seixas (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 63-85; Jörn Rüsen, History: Narration, Interpretation, Orientation (New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 2005); Peter Seixas, ed., Theorizing Historical Consciousness (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004); Peter Seixas, “Translation and its Discontents: Key Concepts in English and German History Education,” Journal of Curriculum Studies (2015).
[10] Lendol Calder, “The Stories we Tell,” OAH Magazine of History 27, no. 3 (2013), 5-8. doi:10.1093/oahmag/oat017.
[11] Peter Seixas, “What is Historical Consciousness?” in To the Past: History Education, Public Memory and Citizenship in Canada, ed. Ruth W. Sandwell (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 11-22.
[12] Peter Lee, “Understanding History,” in Theorizing Historical Consciousness, ed. Peter Seixas (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004a), 129-164; Lee and Howson, “‘Two Out of Five did Not Know that Henry VIII had Six Wives’: History Education, Historical Literacy, and Historical Consciousness,” in National History Standards: The Problem of the Canon and the Future of Teaching History, eds. Symcox and Wilschut (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2009), 211-261; Prangsma, van Boxtel, C A M and Kanselaar, “Developing a ‘Big Picture’: Effects of Collaborative Construction of Multimodal Representations in History,” Instructional Science 36, no. 2 (2008), 117-136; Shemilt and Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79; C. van Boxtel and J. van Drie, “‘That’s in the Time of the Romans!’ Knowledge and Strategies Students use to Contextualize Historical Images and Documents,” Cognition and Instruction 30, no. 2 (2012), 113-145; Arie Wilschut and Linda Symcox, National History Standards: The Problem of the Canon and the Future of Teaching History (Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing, 2009); Wilschut, Images of Time: The Role of an Historical Consciousness of Time in Learning History (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2012).
[13] Denis Shemilt and Jonathan Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Ian Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79.

_____________________

Image Credits

Puzzle © Hans-Peter Gauster, CC-0 1.0, via Wikimedia.

Recommended Citation

Gibson, Lindsay: Frameworks of Knowledge and the “Big Picture”. In: Public History Weekly 6 (2018) 28, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2018-12438.

Editorial Responsibility

Moritz Hoffmann / Marko Demantowsky (Team Basel)

Copyright (c) 2018 by De Gruyter Oldenbourg and the author, all rights reserved. This work may be copied and redistributed for non-commercial, educational purposes, if permission is granted by the author and usage right holders. For permission please contact: elise.wintz (at) degruyter.com.

Obwohl viele Lehrende der Meinung sind, dass eines der Ziele des Geschichtsunterrichts sein sollte, den Schüler*innen zu helfen, das historische Wissen, das sie während ihrer K-12-Ausbildung (Schuljahre 1–12) sammeln, zu kohärenten historischen Erzählungen zusammenzufassen, hat die Forschung gezeigt, dass es vielen von ihnen schwerfällt, kohärente Erzählungen zu konstruieren. Die wenigen, denen dies gelingt, produzieren oftmals bloß formelhafte, simple und naive Erzählungen.[1] Einige Lehrende haben vorgeschlagen, dass sogenannte Wissensrahmen (Frameworks of Knowledge) die Lücken und Verzerrungen im historischen Wissen der Schüler*innen beheben könnten und ihnen helfen würden, unsortierte Informationen in kohärente, umfangreiche Erzählungen zu verwandeln.[2]

Die Bedeutung von Erzählungen

Erzählungen sind unerlässlich für das Lehren und Lernen von Geschichte an K-12-Schulen. Der menschliche Geist ist “exquisit gestimmt”, um Geschichten zu verstehen und sich daran zu erinnern.[3] Diesbezüglich haben mehrere Studien gezeigt, wie Erzählungen den SchülerInnen helfen, das im Geschichtsunterricht Gelernte zu verstehen und zu behalten.[4] Erzählungen sind ein wesentliches und unvermeidbares Genre, durch das Interpretationen der Vergangenheit vermittelt werden.[5] Geschichte wird in der Regel an K-12-Schulen in einem narrativen Format unterrichtet, und die SchülerInnen teilen ihr Wissen über historische Ereignisse oder Themen in narrativer Form mit.[6] In ihrem täglichen Leben begegnen sie regelmäßig vielfältigen und konkurrierenden Erzählungen von Ereignissen, Themen und Entwicklungen, die sich auf die Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft beziehen.[7]

Erzählungen sind entscheidend für die Gestaltung, Konstruktion und Stabilisierung von Identität im Laufe der Zeit. Der Philosoph David Carr erklärt, dass in einer immer komplexer werdenden Gesellschaft, in der Menschen zu vielen Gruppen gehören und mehrere, sich überschneidende Identitäten besitzen, erzählen sie anderen Geschichten, um zu erklären, wer sie sind und zu welchen Gruppen sie gehören.[8] In ähnlicher Weise bieten Erzählungen Einblicke in das Geschichtsbewusstsein der Schüler*innen, ihren Sinnesapparat, um Veränderungen in menschlichen Angelegenheiten im Laufe der Zeit zu verstehen und sich in Gegenwart wie Zukunft zu orientieren.[9] Calder argumentiert, dass “ohne Geschichten, die Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft vereinen, unser Leben nicht verständlich ist und wir nicht wissen, was wir tun sollen.”[10] So hilft das Geschichtsbewusstsein den SchülerInnen, die Vergangenheit zu verstehen, um wiederum “zu verstehen, wer sie sind, wo sie stehen und was sie tun können – als Individuen, als Mitglieder multipler, sich überschneidender Gruppen und als Bürger*innen mit Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten in Bezug auf Nationen und Staaten in einer komplexen, von Konflikten geprägten und sich rasch verändernden Welt”.[11]

Was sind Wissensrahmen?

Geschichtsdidaktiker*innen haben mehrere Begriffe vorgeschlagen, um die Wissensrahmen in der historischen Bildung zu beschreiben: “Historischer Bezugsrahmen”, “Historisches Übersichtswissen”, “Ganzheitliches Verständnis”, “Chronologischer Bezugsrahmen” und “Karten der Vergangenheit”.[12] Trotz bemerkenswerter Unterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Konzeptualisierungen von Wissensrahmen, die von Wissenschaftler*innen entwickelt wurden, bestehen einige Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen den verschiedenen Wissensrahmen.

  • Sie sind Instrumente, die von Lehrenden und Schüler*innen als provisorisches Faktengerüst benutzt werden, um das Lernen über die Vergangenheit und die Konstruktion großer historischer Erzählungen zu beschleunigen und zu erleichtern. Solche Rahmen sind keine vordefinierten “Zusammenfassungen”, “Skizzen” oder andere Lernobjekte, die die ultimative Form der zu konstruierenden historischen Erzählung darstellen sollen.
  • Sie helfen den Schüler*innen, Ereignisse, Entwicklungen und Menschen entlang weitgreifender, zeitlicher und räumlicher Skalen zu kontextualisieren, zu organisieren und zu analysieren. Dies kann große Überblicke über die Menschheitsgeschichte, Zwischenskalen auf nationaler oder regionaler Ebene und zahlreiche vertiefende Studien umfassen, die in die größeren Überblicke eingebettet sind.
  • Sie umfassen die Kenntnis historischer Phänomene (Ereignisse, Menschen, Artefakte, Entwicklungen) entlang weitgefasster zeitlicher und räumlicher Skalen.
  • Sie beinhalten Kenntnisse der für die Konstruktion von Erzählungen wichtigen Verfahrenskonzepte zweiter Ordnung: Chronologie, Wendepunkte, Periodisierung, Kontinuität und Wandel, Fortschritt und Verfall, Ursache und Konsequenz, historische Bedeutung sowie Belege und Interpretationen.
  • Sie sind offen und flexibel für neue Inhalte und Perspektiven, passen sich unterschiedlichen historischen Fragestellungen an und generieren “kleine”, “große” und “größere” Geschichten der Vergangenheit.
  • Sie können in relativ kurzer Zeit (mehrere Tage oder Wochen) unterrichtet werden, sollen aber im Laufe der Zeit erweitert, dekonstruiert und rekonstruiert werden.

Kritisiert wird an Wissensrahmen u.a., dass sie große Erzählungen verstärken. Es stimmt zwar, dass alle Wissensrahmen diese großen Erzählungen unabhängig von ihrem Gerüstcharakter implizieren, jedoch ist die Entwicklung der historischen Erzählrahmen von Schüler*innen nicht dasselbe wie die Einführung einer einzigen großen Erzählung samt der Erwartung, dass die Schüler*innen diese lernen. Ein Wissensrahmen umfasst historische Ereignisse, Menschen und Entwicklungen entlang einer breiten zeitlichen und räumlichen Skala, aber den Schüler*innen wird nicht gesagt, was sie über diese Ereignisse denken sollen. Stattdessen wird von ihnen erwartet, dass sie ihren Wissensrahmen nutzen, um ihre historischen Erzählungen im Laufe der Zeit aktiv aufzubauen, zu erweitern, zu hinterfragen, zu de- und zu rekonstruieren.

Das große Versprechen

Wissensrahmen sind als theoretisches und pädagogisches Schema vielversprechend, da mehrere kleinere Studien gezeigt haben, dass rahmenbasierte Ansätze die Fähigkeit der Schüler*innen, große Erzählungen zu schreiben, ermöglichen und beschleunigen können; diese Ansätze sind jedoch noch nicht an Schulen eingeführt worden.[13] Kürzlich haben meine Kollegin Dr. Catherine Duquette und ich die Datensammlung für eine Studie abgeschlossen, in der untersucht wurde, inwieweit die systematische Nutzung der Didaktik des historischen Denkens und von Ressourcen, die auf die Stärkung des Wissensrahmens der Schüler*innen ausgerichtet sind, die Fähigkeit einer 5. Klasse (n=36) sowie einer 10. Klasse in Alberta (n=42) als auch einer 5. Klasse (n=26) sowie einer 10. Klasse (n=26) in Québec verbesserte, umfassende, kohärente und plausible Erzählungen zur kanadische Geschichte zu konstruieren.

Das Forschungsdesign umfasste einen Pre-Test, fünf 60 bis 75 Minuten lange Blöcke mit vier Klassen über einen Zeitraum von vier Wochen, einen Post-Test sowie Post-Test-Interviews mit fünf Schüler*innen. Der Pre-Test und der Post-Test waren identisch. In Teil A wurden den Schüler*innen verschiedene Diagramme zur Verfügung gestellt, die die Entwicklung der kanadischen Geschichte illustrieren, und sie wurden gebeten, jenes Diagramm auszuwählen, das die Geschichte Kanadas am besten illustriert. In Teil B erhielten die Schüler*innen folgende Aufforderung: “Nehmt was ihr aus der Schule oder von anderswo kennt und beschreibt die Geschichte Kanadas von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart.” In Teil C wurden die Schüler*innen gebeten, einen Titel zu kreieren, der die Kernbotschaft oder das Thema ihrer kanadischen Geschichte festhält. In jeder der fünf Unterrichtseinheiten arbeiteten die Schüler*innen in Gruppen von zwei bis vier Personen, um ihr historisches Wissen mit Hilfe von 30 historischen Ereigniskarten in der kanadischen Geschichte zu vertiefen. In der letzten Sitzung absolvierten sie einen Post-Test, der mit dem Pre-Test identisch war.

In künftigen Beiträgen für ‘Public History Weekly’ freue ich mich darauf, Einzelheiten zur verwendeten Didaktik zu beschreiben sowie darzustellen, inwieweit die Fähigkeit der Schüler*innen, kohärente historische Erzählungen in der kanadischen Geschichte zu konstruieren, verbessert wurde.

_____________________

Literaturhinweise

  • Prangsma, Maaike E., Carla A. M. van Boxtel, and Gellof Kanselaar. “Developing a ‘Big Picture’: Effects of Collaborative Construction of Multimodal Representations in History.” Instructional Science 36 2 (2008): 117-136.
  • Shemilt, Denis and Jonathan Howson. “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates.” In Debates in History Teaching, edited by Ian Davies, 66-79. New York: Routledge, 2017.
  • Wilschut, Arie. Images of Time: The Role of an Historical Consciousness of Time in Learning History. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2012.

Webressourcen

_____________________

[1] Peter Lee and Jonathan Howson, “‘Two Out of Five Did Not Know that Henry VIII had Six Wives’: History Education, Historical Literacy, and Historical Consciousness,” in National History Standards: The Problem of the Canon and the Future of Teaching History, eds. L. Symcox and Arie Wilschut (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2009), 211-261; Jonathan Howson and Denis Shemilt, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching, ed. Ian Davies (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011), 73-83; Jocelyn Létourneau and Sabrina Moisan, “Young People’s Assimilation of a Collective Historical Memory: A Case Study of Quebeckers of French-Canadian Heritage,” in Theorizing Historical Consciousness, ed. Peter Seixas (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 109-128; Maaike E. Prangsma, Carla A.M. van Boxtelund Gellof Kanselaar, “Developing a ‘Big Picture’: Effects of Collaborative Construction of Multimodal Representations in History,” Instructional Science 36, no. 2 (2008), 117-136; Denis Shemilt and Jonathan Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Ian Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79; Arie Wilschut, Images of Time: The Role of an Historical Consciousness of Time in Learning History (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2012).
[2] Frances Blow et al., “Only Connect: How Students Form Connections within and between Historical Narratives,” in Joined-Up History: New Directions in History Education Research, eds. Arthur Chapman and Arie Wilschut (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2015), 279-316; Foster et al., Usable Historical Pasts: A Study of Students’ Frameworks of the Past (Swindon, UK: ESRC 2008); Jonathan Howson, “Potential and Pitfalls in Teaching ‘Big Pictures’ of the Past,” Teaching History, no. 136 (2009), 24-33; Peter Lee, “History Education and Historical Literacy,” in Debates in History Teaching, ed. Ian Davies, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2017), 55-65; Rick Rogers, “Frameworks for Big History: Teaching History at its Lower Resolutions,” in MasterClass in History Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning, eds. Christine Counsell, Katharine Burn and Arthur Chapman (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016), 59-76; Shemilt and Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79.
[3] Daniel T. Willingham, Why Don’t Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about how the Mind Works and what it Means for Your Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009), 180.
[4] K. C. Barton and Linda S. Levstik, Teaching History for the Common Good (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004), 288; Kieran Egan, “Layers of Historical Understanding,” Theory and Research in Social Education 17, no. 4 (1989), 280-294; Terry Haydn et al., ed., Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2008); James F. Voss and J. Wiley, “A Case Study of Developing Understanding Via Instruction,” in Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and International Perspectives, eds. P. Stearns, Peter Seixas and Sam Wineburg, 2000), 375-389; Stéphane Lévesque and Paul Zanazanian, “Developing Historical Consciousness and a Community of History Practitioners: A Survey of Prospective History Teachers Across Canada,” McGill Journal of Education 50, no. 2-3 (2015), 389-412.
[5] David Carr, Time, Narrative, and History: Essays in the Philosophy of History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); Philippe Carrard, “History and Narrative: An Overview,” Narrative Works 5, no. 1 (2015), 174-196. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/NW/article/view/23790/27570.; Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).
[6] K. C. Barton, “Research on Students’ Ideas about History,” in Handbook of Research in Social Studies Education, eds. L. S. Levstik and Cynthia A. Tyson (New York: Routledge, 2008), 239-258.
[7] James V. Wertsch, Voices of Collective Remembering (Cambridge, U.K ;New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 202.; David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
[8] Carr, Time, Narrative, and History: Essays in the Philosophy of History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986).
[9] Catherine Duquette, “Relating Historical Consciousness to Historical Thinking through Assessment,” in New Directions in Assessing Historical Thinking, eds. Kadriye Ercikan and Peter Seixas (New York: Routledge, 2015), 51-63; Jörn Rüsen, “Historical Consciousness: Narrative Structure, Moral Function, and Ontogenetic Development,” in Theorizing Historical Consciousness, ed. Peter Seixas (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 63-85; Jörn Rüsen, History: Narration, Interpretation, Orientation (New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 2005); Peter Seixas, ed., Theorizing Historical Consciousness (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004); Peter Seixas, “Translation and its Discontents: Key Concepts in English and German History Education,” Journal of Curriculum Studies (2015).
[10] Lendol Calder, “The Stories we Tell,” OAH Magazine of History 27, no. 3 (2013), 5-8. doi:10.1093/oahmag/oat017.
[11] Peter Seixas, “What is Historical Consciousness?” in To the Past: History Education, Public Memory and Citizenship in Canada, ed. Ruth W. Sandwell (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 11-22.
[12] Peter Lee, “Understanding History,” in Theorizing Historical Consciousness, ed. Peter Seixas (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004a), 129-164; Lee and Howson, “‘Two Out of Five did Not Know that Henry VIII had Six Wives’: History Education, Historical Literacy, and Historical Consciousness,” in National History Standards: The Problem of the Canon and the Future of Teaching History, eds. Symcox and Wilschut (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2009), 211-261; Prangsma, van Boxtel, C A M and Kanselaar, “Developing a ‘Big Picture’: Effects of Collaborative Construction of Multimodal Representations in History,” Instructional Science 36, no. 2 (2008), 117-136; Shemilt and Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79; C. van Boxtel and J. van Drie, “‘That’s in the Time of the Romans!’ Knowledge and Strategies Students use to Contextualize Historical Images and Documents,” Cognition and Instruction 30, no. 2 (2012), 113-145; Arie Wilschut and Linda Symcox, National History Standards: The Problem of the Canon and the Future of Teaching History (Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing, 2009); Wilschut, Images of Time: The Role of an Historical Consciousness of Time in Learning History (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2012).
[13] Denis Shemilt and Jonathan Howson, “Frameworks of Knowledge: Dilemmas and Debates,” in Debates in History Teaching: Second Edition, ed. Ian Davies (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66-79.

_____________________

Abbildungsnachweis

Puzzle © Hans-Peter Gauster, CC-0 1.0, via Wikimedia.

Empfohlene Zitierweise

Gibson, Lindsay: Wissensrahmen und das “Große Ganze”. In: Public History Weekly 6 (2018) 28, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2018-12438.

Translated by Mark Kyburz (http://englishprojects.ch)

Redaktionelle Verantwortung

Moritz Hoffmann / Marko Demantowsky

Copyright (c) 2018 by De Gruyter Oldenbourg and the author, all rights reserved. This work may be copied and redistributed for non-commercial, educational purposes, if permission is granted by the author and usage right holders. For permission please contact: elise.wintz (at) degruyter.com.


Categories: 6 (2018) 27
DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2018-12438

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest