Reading Abraham Lincoln: An Expert/Expert Study in the Interpretation of Historical Texts

Abstract

This study explored how historians with different background knowledge read a series of primary source documents. Two university-based historians thought aloud as they read documents about Abraham Lincoln and the question of slavery, with the broad goal of understanding Lincoln's views on race. The first historian brought detailed content knowledge to the documents; the second historian was familiar with some of the themes in the documents but quickly became confused in the details. After much cognitive flailing, the second historian was able to piece together an interpretative structure that brought him by the task's end to where his more knowledgeable colleague began. Data analysis focused on how, lacking detailed content knowledge, this historian was able to regain his intellectual footing, work through confusion, and resist the urge to simplify. Implications of this work for cognitive analyses in history and education are discussed.

Toward Historical Perspective Taking: Students’ Reasoning When Contextualizing the Actions of People in the Past

“…Historical empathy refers to placing oneself in the position of people in the past to understand their motives and values regarding their decisions and actions (e.g., Cunningham, 2009;Endacott & Sturtz, 2014). Although some scholars have argued that historical empathy can never be fully achieved and is idealistic because it is impossible to put oneself in the shoes of a historical agent (e.g., Kitson, Husbands, & Steward, 2011;Riley, 1998;Wineburg, 1998), many scholars have concluded that historical empathy contributes to insights about historical agents' decisions (e.g., Brooks, 2011;Endacott & Brooks, 2013;Kohlmeier, 2006). However, though history education research has debated the extent to which historical empathy is an affective or cognitive achievement (e.g., Virja & Kouki, 2014), we consider historical empathy as a combination of affective and cognitive processes, following the conceptualization of scholars such as Endacott and Brooks (2013).…”

“…When investigating how students contextualize and date historical images and documents, Van Boxtel and Van Drie (2012) found that students who rushed to a conclusion or ignored information regarding the source more often failed to contextualize the source compared with students who approached the task systematically and used many clues provided by the source to generate alternative hypotheses. Wineburg (1998) investigated how two historians created a historical context from a historical text noting that specification of ignorance could promote the ability to create an adequate historical context. This specification of ignorance can refer to expressing puzzlement, asking questions, or specifying gaps in knowledge.…”

An analysis of predictors of history content knowledge: Implications for policy and practice

“…Detractors suggest that NAEP scores do not capture the complexity of historical thinking (Breakstone, 2014;Rothstein, 2004); however, others argue that tests like NAEP provide a baseline of students' understanding of the common historical narrative, a narrative up for critique but essential for contextualization (Reich, 2009(Reich, , 2011VanSledright, 2011;Wineburg, 1998). Given the criticism leveled against using NAEP-USH as a representative gauge of higher-order historical thinking, interpretation of student outcomes was tempered.…”

Comparison of Student Learning in Challenge-based and Traditional Instruction in Biomedical Engineering

“…They tend to review multiple perspectives when considering the solutions to new problems, seek out challenges in their work, successfully gauge their own current knowledge state, and view their knowledge base as dynamic. 7,16,18,40 All types of expertise require a significant investment of time and effort to develop. 10 Frequently AE is acquired only after many years of practical postgraduate industrial experience or of graduate and postdoctoral research study.…”